by Nasir Iqbal in Dawn, November 20th, 2020
ISLAMABAD: A group of public-spirited individuals, including I.A. Rehman, on Thursday challenged the Supreme Court office’s Oct 29 decision to return a petition they had moved against the alleged kidnapping and detention of the Sindh police chief.
The petition had sought an SC declaration that the Oct 19 detention of the Sindh inspector general as well as illegal and mala fide interference in a criminal investigation gravely breached fundamental rights and impinged upon the provincial autonomy.
The petition, filed by senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui on behalf of Karamat Ali, Nazim Fida Hussain, Mohammad Jibran Nasir, Mahnaz Rahman, Salima Hashmi, Zehra Bano, Mohammad Tahseen, Nasir Aziz, Farhat Parveen, Fahim Zaman Khan and Anis Haroon, had requested the apex court to restrain the ministries of interior and defence as well as Pakistan Rangers from interfering in the jurisdiction and affairs of the Sindh IGP.
The fresh appeal requests the Supreme Court to set aside the Oct 29 administrative order of the registrar office and entertain the original petition. Filed under Rule 7, Order 25 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the appeal contends that the registrar office could only raise objections that were limited to observations regarding administrative requirements necessary for the court to entertain any appeal, petition or application.
In its administrative order, the registrar office had stated that the petitioners had invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for redressal of an “individual grievance”, which was not permissible in terms of judgement reported as 1998. Moreover, it said, the petitioners had not approached any other appropriate forum available to them under the law for the same relief and had also not provided any justification for not doing so.
Besides, the SC office added, the petitioners had not pointed out as to what questions of public importance in the instant case were involved with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution so as to directly invoke jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
It said the ingredients for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution had not been satisfied, adding that the language of the petition was ambiguous and misconceived as its contents were not interlinked with each other. Besides, the SC office added, misconceiving multifarious prayers had been made in one petition.
In response, the appeal argues that the contention highlighted by the registrar office about individual grievance and what questions of public importance involved in the petition were misconceived on law. It argues that the petition involves grave question of public importance because with the kidnapping and detention of the IGP of a province, the fundamental rights, including the right to life and liberty under Article 9, right to dignity under Article 14 and right to due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of all citizens and persons living in Pakistan, including the petitioners, have been irreparably prejudiced and the guarantee of fundamental rights has become unenforceable.
Secondly, it says, the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution as well as the crucial function of the state to maintain law and order are irreparably prejudiced where the autonomy of police has been irreparably prejudiced by the kidnapping and detention of their chief. Therefore, it argues, the very foundations of the state have been shaken by this illegal and mala fide act.
Thirdly, the appeal contends, the kidnapping and detention of the IGP and the illegal and mala fide interference in a criminal investigation involves grave issues of fundamental rights, including but not limited to, issues of provincial autonomy and an effective police force which is only possible if it is autonomous from extraneous influences.
“If there is any contemporary matter in Pakistan, which is a matter of public importance and involves fundamental rights, it is the kidnapping/detention of the IGP,” the appeal highlights, adding that the administrative order of the registrar office is not only erroneous in law but also against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience and amounts to usurpation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1591365/return-of-plea-against-ig-kidnapping-challenged
