Islamabad: Advocate General (AG) KP has raised objections over jurisdiction powers of court during hearing of PTI September 27 protest and Long march case in Islamabad High Court (IHC) .
He said IHC was established under act and its jurisdiction powers are upto Islamabad. Giving directions to officers of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KP does not come in its jurisdiction powers.
On the other hand the court while seeking affidavit from KP chief secretary and IG Police till Monday has directed the respondents to file reply to reply.
The court has directed the officers other than Chief secretary KP and IG not to appear in next hearing.
Before hearing of the case before three members bench of IHC presided over by Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and comprising Justice Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif . secretary KP Shahab Ali Shah, Additional IG Abbas Ahsan, Advocate General Punjab Barrister Zafar Ullah, interior secretary, IG Punjab and other officials reached the court.
Advocate General (AG) KP while raising objection over the jurisdiction powers of IHC at the inception of hearing said first point which the court should see is its powers of jurisdiction. IHC was established under an act. Its jurisdiction powers is upto Islamabad. Giving directions to officers of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KP does not come in its jurisdiction powers.
He said separate high courts have been established for every province and Islamabad. Islamabad is not a province it is territory. Therefore, separate act was enacted for it. This principle is there in courts decisions that the court will be approached in whose jurisdiction powers the case falls.
He said the petitioner has given the jurisdiction powers of entire Pakistan to this court. If one high court interferes in jurisdiction powers of other provinces then 18th amendment will become ineffective. The court should first decide can it hear this case or otherwise. Then I will give arguments on the maintainability of the case.
The CJ IHC directed AG KP to continue his arguments.
AG while raising question on the petitioner being aggrieved party said how the petitioner is aggrieved party. The work has not been done so far.
AG KP said the petitioner has targeted a political party while long march is not being held by one party but several parties are holding it. The party against which action is being sought to be taken has not been made respondent in this case. It should be made respondent.
CJ IHC inquired has he made consultation with CM KP and is he representative of KP government.
AG KP said yes he is representative of KP government.
CJ IHC remarked CM KP has two caps one is of CM and second is as member of political party.
AG KP said had he not been party member then how could he become CM.
On the directives of court, AG KP read out the relevant parts of oath of CM KP. He said CM KP has not said any such thing which is against law, constitution or integrity of country.
CJ IHC directed AG KP to read out article 5 of the constitution remarking CM should be more sincere with the state.
AG KP replied CM KP is more sincere with state. He has not given any such statement which is against law, constitution or state.
CJ IHC questioned why the protests come towards Islamabad always.
Chief secretary described it as political movement.
CJ IHC inquired is mounting federal capital a political activity.
The court later sought affidavit from chief secretary and IG KP.
AG KP requested the court to make KP CM and PTI respondents. Those have not been made respondents against whom they want to get issue writ through petition.
AG KP cited to certain statements of Punjab CM Maryam Nawaz and advisor to prime minister Rana Sana Ullah .
He said CM Punjab gave statement they are facing no threat from India but they are facing more threat from provinces. Question is this, is it not a statement to break KP. Rana Sana Ullah said decision against long march will come from high court.
Justice Azam Khan said it seems as if you are making political talks.
AG KP said he is narrating facts and not doing political talks.
He said this case seems to him to be more political and less legal.
He raised objection over placement of containers during protest and long march. When long march is talked about then the containers are put before arrival of citizens. Is placing containers not violation of rights of citizens.
Requesting the court to take notice against federal government he said he has video proofs that containers are placed outside KP house.
He said citizens are losing their confidence on federal government.
He raised the matter of non implementation of court's orders regarding Adiala jail.
The court's orders are not being implemented since two years. Have the citizens no right to voice protest against it.
CJ IHC Sarfraz Dogar said the matter of contempt of court is between court and contemnor. Cases have to be fixed when, it is administrative power of court. You have started saying strange things. Are the cases to be fixed according to you.
The CJ gave remarks on some arguments of AG KP that you have launched straight offensive against the judiciary.
AG Punjab while giving arguments said he is too much supporter of liberties of citizens. He has seen shelling in Punjab and embracing martyrdom by police men.
While condemning the statement given by AG KP against CM Punjab said CM Punjab is neither respondent in this petition nor she is present in the court.
He said it is responsibility of C M Punjab to keep every citizen of province safe and secure.
He made it clear court is not a political forum but it is legal forum.
AG Punjab did not raise objection on the jurisdiction of the petition saying what court orders, will be implemented.
Later AG Sindh too completed his arguments.
AG Balochistan too gave arguments.
The court sought affidavit from KP chief secretary and IG police till Monday maintaining other officers except these two officers need not to appear during next hearing.
The court adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday.,