A three-member bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa on Thursday adjourned until Nov. 1 a hearing into a set of petitions seeking review of the 2019 Faizabad dharna judgment after almost all the petitioners sought to withdraw their applications.
Among the petitioners who have withdrawn their review pleas are the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI); the federal government through the defense ministry; the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA); the Election Commission of Pakistan; and the Intelligence Bureau. The only petitioners who have yet to withdraw their applications are the MQM, Ejazul Haq, and Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, whose lawyer had requested an adjournment as he could not appear in court after being appointed the interim law minister of Balochistan.
Urging Ahmed’s lawyer to appoint a replacement if he could not appear before the court, the CJP expressed annoyance over the non-implementation of the 2019 verdict—on the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP)’s sit-in of 2017. He also questioned why everyone was withdrawing their pleas at this juncture. “Why is everyone so scared?” he questioned and directed all the petitioners to submit in writing their reasons for the withdrawal. He also observed that the review petition should have been fixed for hearing immediately, but had been pending for four years. “One of the judges who pronounced the verdict has retired, therefore, this case was not fixed before that bench,” he clarified.
“I am surprised over the petitioners’ request to call back their petitions,” he observed, adding that this meant they had accepted the validity of the original ruling. “Now is your chance to stand with the truth,” he added. He remarked that if the court’s verdict had been effectively implemented, several “serious incidents” could have been averted. “If this verdict was implemented at that time, then serious incidents would not have taken place later,” he observed.
During the proceedings, the CJP asked the AGP why all the petitioners should not be fined for wasting the court’s time. “We were sitting that perhaps we had made a mistake in the verdict,” he said. Justice Athar Minallah, similarly, questioned if all the institutions had decided that the original verdict was correct. “The country can only develop through the protection of fundamental rights,” he remarked.
Referring to the ECP, he said it should explain why the initial review petition was filed and why it was now being withdrawn. “Write where the order came from … If you want to say that bury it and ignore, then write that as well,” he said. “Should we also bury what happened on May 12 and how many people were killed?” he asked, referring to the 2007 riots in Karachi.
“It is not correct to say new government or old government. The government stays the government, regardless of the party in power,” the CJP observed, adding the ECP was an institution and could not claim it had altered its stance on the basis of a change in leadership. “There should be accountability for everyone. We can start from ourselves,” he said.
The AGP argued that the court’s original verdict should be implemented but requested time to do so. “It is very interesting that those who should have filed a review petition did not do so,” remarked the CJP. “Tehreek-e-Labaik did not file any review petition [and] accepted the verdict. Late Khadim Rizvi deserves to be praised for this. Everyone makes mistakes [but] accepting them is a huge thing,” he added.
In its original verdict, a two-member bench of the apex court—comprising now-CJP Isa and Justice Mushir Alam—had directed that anyone who issued an edict or fatwa to harm another person or put another person in harm’s way must be dealt with iron hand and prosecuted under relevant laws. It had also ruled that intelligence agencies must not exceed their respective mandates and directed the defense ministry and tri-services chiefs to penalize any personnel found to be violating their oath.
The ruling had also noted that the right to assemble and protest was circumscribed only to the extent that it infringes on the fundamental rights of others, including their right to free movement and to hold and enjoy property.