CJP blasts ‘very disappointing’ Faizabad dharna fee report

“In our opinion, the report doesn’t attend to the stated phrases of reference. Furthermore, the fee has ventured into areas which weren’t a part of its TORs,” Chief Justice Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa stated whereas dictating the order of the listening to.

A 3-member Supreme Courtroom bench took up a set of overview petitions filed towards the SC’s 2019 judgement within the Faizabad sit-in case.

The bench headed by Justice Isa, and likewise together with Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Awan presided over the listening to, which was broadcast reside on the Supreme Courtroom web site and YouTube channel.

The report was fashioned by a three-member fee comprising IGP (retd) Tahir Alam Khan, Further Secretary Khushal Khan, and IGP (retd) Dr Syed Akhtar Ali Shah. It submitted a report on March 06, 2024, comprising 140 pages.

“We additionally observe that every one weren’t handled equally and statements of some have been recorded or observe others despatched questioners. Surprisingly, no member of TLP was referred to as for and statements recorded,” the order stated.

It added that the fee “someway assumed and did so incorrectly” that the proper to protest or travelling to Islamabad to protest was prohibited by the Structure regardless that, the judgement had acknowledged the other.

“The fee additionally didn’t think about lots of the points of the judgement and order subsequently handed by this court docket. The judgement had famous that the proper to assemble and protest, supplied it’s peaceable and complies with the regulation imposing affordable restrictions within the curiosity of public order can’t be proscribed.”

The apex court docket additionally famous that it was disappointing to notice the “ingredient of provincialism” which has crept into the report and the castigating these on the political helm of the affairs on the related time “disregarding the perpetrators of violence”.

Legal professional Basic for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan knowledgeable the court docket that whether or not the federal government endorsed the stated report and or does so imparted. The AGP acknowledged that he could be submitting a proper assertion on this regard. He sought two weeks time from the court docket to submit the reply that was granted.

He nevertheless expressed his opinion because the AGP that the report “lacked substance and that by and enormous the TORs referred to the fee weren’t attended to.”

AGP Awan would submit the reply on behalf of the federal government.

“The federal authorities also needs to state whether or not it needs to make public the report or not,” the order stated, “let the copy of this order be despatched to the fee members by means of the federal government of Pakistan who could reply to the preliminary observations made in a writing and or might also be current in the event that they elect to take action.”