Presidential pardon to Malik: LHC reserves its verdict

A full bench of the Lahore High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a petition challenging presidential pardon to interior minister Rehman Malik. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry reserved judgement on the petition of Imtiaz Rasheed Qureshi, media co-ordinator of Save Judicial Committee.
The petitioner requested the court to set aside the president's order and restore the sentence immediately, which had been pardoned by the president. Petitioner's counsel Barrister Farooq Hasan submitted that it was usual requirement to give benefit of this provision to an accused only when he or someone on his behalf had utilised all legal remedies prior to avail the presidential reprieve.
He submitted that if someone was convicted in any court he had right to file appeal against his sentence in the Supreme Court (SC) and if his appeal was not heard in apex court or decision was given against him then he could file mercy appeal with the president. He stated that the minister had not approached the Supreme Court in this connection and it was possible had he resorted to SC, the apex court would have set aside the High Court's verdict.
He said that there was no justification in this remission as Rehman Malik had not filed any mercy petition and the purported pardon is against the due process conceptions of the Constitution. He submitted that the unholy manner in which pardon has been granted showed the determination of the president to get his way no matter what the cost might be to the nations of human dignity or good governance.
He said that the prime minister advised the president for grant of the pardon and the president exercising his constitutional powers under article 45 of the constitution granted him pardon. He said that article 45 of the Constitution empowers the president to grant pardon, remit or commute any sentence passed by any court. He said that neither the petition has a locus standi nor he is an aggrieved person. He said the presidential action under Article 45 cannot be challenged as it was done in accordance with the Constitution. The bench after hearing the parties at length reserved its verdict.