ISLAMABAD: Can the Supreme Court suspend an act duly adopted by parliament, was the question raised by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Tuesday, but at the same time he cautioned that the restraint being exercised by the top court should not be considered its weakness.

The chief justice made the observation during the hearing of a set of 13 petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017 that allows a disqualified parliamentarian — in this case deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif — to hold any party office.

The petitions were filed by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan, the Pakistan Peoples Party, Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and 10 others.

At the outset of the hearing, Leader of the House in the Senate Raja Zafarul Haq appeared before the court to seek adjournment of the case for two weeks. But the chief justice said the court would grant 10 days’ time.

Railways Minister Kha­waja Saad Rafique, former information minister Per­vaiz Rashid and Minister of State for Capital Adminis­tration and Development Division Tariq Fazal also attended the hearing. However, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal left early.

Mian Saqib Nisar says though he never watches TV, he receives messages about what has been stated against judiciary

At the last hearing on Jan 1, the Supreme Court had held the petitions maintainable on the grounds that the matter involved the enforcement of fundamental rights like Article 9 that guarantees security of citizens and Article 17 that deals with freedom of association.

When senior counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem said the petitioners had sought suspension of the Elections Act 2017 because a disqualified person could not become the head of a political party, the chief justice observed that the apex court would have to consider whether or not it could suspend an act passed by legislators.

Justice Nisar, however, observed that the individual had become the party head under a law that was currently in the field.

While referring to different political statements of Saad Rafique, the chief justice observed that the court could not respond to his statements because he spoke outside the court premises and was alone with a microphone. But he would be provided ample opportunity here to speak and would also get replies, the court observed.

The railways minister, however, said that he could not speak here.

The chief justice said the minister could speak on legal points, but he had to exercise restraint. One should never dig holes, he observed, adding that though he never watched television, he received messages about what had been stated against the judiciary.

“We don’t want to get ourselves involved in political issues, but the restraint we are showing should not be considered our weakness,” the chief justice cautioned, reiterating that judges respected parliament and they expected to be reciprocated by it.

While postponing the hearing to Feb 6, the chief justice observed that the name of Saad Rafique should be written in bold letters.

At this, senior counsel Latif Khosa said in a lighter vein that since Mr Rafique chewed steel peas [lohe ke chane], his name should definitely be written in bold letters.

One of the petitions argued that amendments to the Elections Act were mala fide and unconstitutional as they were being introduced only to accommodate one person i.e. Nawaz Sharif who had been disqualified by the Supreme Court under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

“The people at large who are citizens of Pakistan have a right to join any political party, including the PML-N, but this right will be completely jeopardised if the party is headed by a disqualified person.

“The act to make [Nawaz] Sharif as the party head of PML-N is against Articles 62, 63 and 189 of the Constitution and unless and until this court extends immediate judicial interference, grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and the public at large,” the petition contended.

Published in Dawn, January 24th, 2018