Just as the courts define what is constitutional or not, it is the courts that also define their jurisdictions. However, any step taken, like admitting a petition, or denying it, or referring to a higher court, needs a precise reading of the relevant laws and establishing the basis for the step taken, just as for giving a final verdict. I find any and all of that lacking in this case.
Most people here are in the habit of supporting only what fits their own views, not what is right. That is a huge reason Pakistan is in the mess that it is today, since PDF is but a microcosm of the whole country. Therefore, there is no respect for a verdict that goes against whatever it is that is in the mind already, or enthusiastic cheering if it supports the preconceived position.
This is what petitioner had submitted before the court and I don't think the court had any reason other than being biased to decline the plea.
The respondent No.5
is also a political party doing political activities under the name and
style of “Pakistan Awami Tehreek” (hereinafter referred to as
P.A.T), the P.A.T. has not contested the general election nor is part
of the Parliament. Both the parties have decided to launch „Long
March‟, „Azadi March‟ or „Inqlab March‟ towards Islamabad on 14th
August, 2014 (the Independence Day of Pakistan) with the following
motives:
(a) The Prime Minister of Pakistan should step down;
(b) The Parliament of Pakistan be dissolved;
(c) Election Commission be re-constituted; and
(d) Interim government of technocrats be formed and
election be held.
And in case the above said demands are not accepted, they
will continue with their Dharna (sit-in) in Islamabad D-Chowk and
they will choke the entire system unless their demands are accepted.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Chairman
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf P.T.I. Mr. Imran Khan has warned of
shutting down the entire country if any attempt was made to put him
under house arrest. Learned counsel quotes, what Chairman of P.T.I.
exactly stated
“If the government tried to put me under house arrest,
I promise you, we will shut down the whole country”. The
respondents No.4 and 5 are inciting the police and administration of
the Province as well as the Federal Government by announcing “the
Punjab police and administration have to decide whether they are
slaves of the Sharifs or government servants.
If any of my workers is
tortured or harassed, the Punjab police will not get a place to hide”.
Both the parties‟ heads are openly inviting public at large for
so called revolution after toppling the Federal Government and
Provincial Governments excepting Government of the Province of
KP by announcing that revolution does not usher in without making
sacrifices. Both of them have further instigated the public at large
on different occasions that in case any damage is done to them, they
should exterminate
Sharif brothers and their families. Learned
counsel submits that due to illegal threats and designs of the
respondents No.4 and 5, the Country has suffered a huge financial
loss, its economy is going to a dead end day by day and
the Stock
Exchange has suffered loss of billions of rupees in three days. He
submits that fall of one point in the Stock Exchange means loss of
Rs.250 million. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is all lie and do not concern a citizen in any way then surely the petition should have been declined on very first hearing.
I am not defending anyone here, the only thing I am trying to put here is that the court had valid reasons to accept the petition for hearing. The verdict however is perhaps the most ill-defined verdict ever passed by a constitutional court.
