ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court turned down the petitions seeking to order the prime minister to hold a referendum in the country for a presidential form of government. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on Monday, heard the petitions of Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Khan Kasuri, Dr Sadiq Ali, Tahir Aziz Khan, and Hafeezur Rehman Chaudhry.
They had filed identical constitutional petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, urging the apex court to direct the Prime Minister to hold a referendum under Article 48(6) of the Constitution to know the public opinion on the presidential form of government in the country.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned, on what basis the Supreme Court can order the PM to hold the referendum. "There is no clause in the constitution, which mandates the Supreme Court to issue instructions to the prime minister for a referendum for the presidential form of government," he said. "It is a political question, how the court could intervene in it," said Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
"Has someone raised this issue in the parliament," he added. "How can a single person demand changing the parliamentary system of governance," Justice Muneeb asked.
"It is [the] prime minister's discretion to refer the matter for a referendum on the issue to the joint sitting of the parliament," the court maintained.
Justice Muneeb said the experience of referendums and the presidential system has always been bad for the country.
He said three times there was a presidential system in Pakistan. In 1984 referendum it was said, if people want Islam then I (Gen Ziaul Haq) will be president. Similarly, in 2002 as a result of the referendum he (Gen Musharraf) became president. The court said Pakistan was divided due to the 1962 presidential system. It noted that General Ayub Khan, after the military coup held a referendum in 1960 and became the president.
Justice Bandial said the presidential system had damaged the country, adding they do not like to repeat the events of 1958.
"Let the Court solve people's issues; therefore, do not involve us in political matters." Justice Muneeb said in the 1973 Constitution, the nation opted for a parliamentary system. He questioned what is the guarantee the presidential system will bring prosperity.
Justice Mansoor questioned does Islam says that there should be a presidential system. Justice Ata Bandial said that the court does not have power to say the new system will improve things. The court, upholding the registrar office's objections, declared that the petitions are non-maintainable.
Justice Bandial said whatever form of the presidential system, the country faced problems. Addressing the petitioners, he said there is hope things will improve, if there will be a parliamentary form of government. Ahmed Raza Kasuri, a petitioner, said the SC Registrar should not have the power to dismiss the petitions.
Justice Bandial told the petitioners that their applications do not have substantial material about fundamental rights. He asked the petitioners, why they had to come to the Supreme Court in the presence of powerful political parties.
He remarked if any political party had approached the Court then they might have considered the plea. Kasuri said in the parliament there are only abuses, adding when the politicians do not think for the welfare and development of the country, then should he also remained silent. "I am among the founders of the 1973 Constitution," Kasuri said.
Justice Mansoor said under Article 48(6) of Constitution, the prime minister can place the matter before the parliament for referendum. He questioned whether the prime minister has placed this issue before the parliament or not?
He further asked whether the presidential system is the wish of an individual. Kasuri responded he is not an individual, but an institution. Justice Muneeb said; "Kasuri sahib at the time of framing of 1973 Constitution you were the parliamentarian." Did you sign for the parliamentary system in the constitution, he questioned.
"Neither I voted nor signed on the Constitution," Kasuri replied. "Then you cannot claim to be a founder of the Constitution," the justice remarked. Petitioner Dr Sadiq Ali said that according to the Islamic point of view there should be democracy like in Khulfa-e-Rashideen's period.
Justice Bandial said everyone wants leadership like Khulfa-e-Rashideen, adding; "We should be realistic that now can we find leadership like Khulfa-e-Rashideen." Justice Bandial said Quaid-i-Azam also talked about democracy. He asked the petitioners that they are free to launch a political movement for their cause.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.