Islamabad High Court (IHC) has remarked non placing PEECA ordinance before parliament proves ill intent of the executive.
The miscellaneous applications against PEECA amendment ordinance came up for hearing before single bench of IHC presided over by Chief Justice (CJ) IHC Athar Minallah Wednesday.
Adil Aziz Qazi from PFUJ, Usman Warraich and others appeared before the court. Qasim Wadood, Additional Attorney General (AAG) represented the government.
AAG told the court may be the ordinance is withdrawn by the government. He said different aspects about promulgation of ordinance are seen. The powers about promulgation of ordinance under article 89 are given upto what extent.
The court inquired from AAG this ordinance was promulgated on what date.
The AAG told the court ordinance was promulgated on February 18 and was notified in gazette on February 19.
The court remarked this is not executive powers that it should not be placed before the parliament., Non placing the ordinance before parliament this way proves ill intent of the executive.
AAG told the court there is timeline for presenting it before the parliament. It has to be placed before the parliament within this time line. Executive has to adopt them till the rules are there.
The court remarked the government has to present ordinance in National Assembly and Senate sessions. It cannot be done that it is presented where there is majority. You have to tell if executive does not discharge its constitutional obligations, it has too its effects. You have to tell this ordinance was placed when and before which house. National Assembly or Senate can reject the ordinance at any time. The constitution makes it binding that ordinance will be presented before both of the houses of parliament. If ordinance is not presented today in parliament then as to why the court should declare it ill intent of executive. Ordinance has to be presented before both of the houses of parliament. Executive can not do this that it presents the ordinance before the house wherein it enjoys majority. If executive has violated its duty then what will be its consequences. Can executive prevent parliament from using its powers for approving or rejecting the ordinance. The constitution says the ordinance will be presented before both the houses of parliament after it is promulgated. Parliament is supreme. It can reject the ordinance. Executive has no powers to defy the constitution. If any house of the parliament does not reject the ordinance then it will be presented as bill. Executive is keeping deprived the parliament of its right to review the ordinance. If one house of parliament rejects the ordinance then it will stand abolished. The court can not put this case on back burner.
The court further remarked such an application is there wherein clauses of PEECA act have been challenged. How can the powers of arresting be given in section 20. This court has never said one should libel. But there is separate law in this regard. One journalist gave reference of a book which has been published. Did FIA send notice.
The AAG told the court section 20 of PEECA ordinance is bailable.
The court remarked if it is bailable then how Mohsin Baig was being arrested.
AAG told the court Mohsin Baig was not arrested in this case.,
The court remarked the case was framed because they had gone to arrest Mohsin Baig.
The AAG told the court there were several others sections in the FIR which were non bailable.
The court remarked the other clauses which were imposed were not correct Was the complaint of the complainant Murad Saeed received in Lahore. If the complaint was received then through what sources it was received. Was it received through TCS. If the FIA is meant for only serving the government. Most of the applications on which the FIA took action pertained to public office holder. FIA took the action against the journalists and for stifling the dissident voices. FIA misused its powers enormously. It is fact that values of our society have degenerated too much. Should we send all to jail. The political parties are responsible for these values of the society. If any one does not give true evidence then prosecutor be allowed to award punishment to any one. After 5 years some other government will come then FIA will do so too. Government has made section 20 non bailable in ordinance. It was made non bailable so that its more dire consequences could come before. Has the definition of natural person been changed. You included the institutions and companies therein too. If some one criticizes PTCL in future then FIA will take action on it too.
The court adjourned the hearing of the case till April 04.
