ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was requested on Monday to set aside the March 30 order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that had rejected a plea against the prime minister’s aide Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari, popularly known as Zulfi Bukhari, for his alleged role in allowing pilgrims to enter Pakistan without undergoing mandatory quarantine.

The Civil Society of Pakistan organisation moved the petition before the SC through advocate Tariq Asad, seeking leave to appeal against the March 30 IHC order.

The high court had dismissed the earlier petition, saying that it was not the time to raise controversies or to doubt the intention of the state and its functionaries in meeting the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

The high court, while dismissing the petition, had also highlighted the need to remain united and trust the state and its functionaries, saying the jurisdiction of the high court could not be exercised for initiating inquiries.

Petition says PM aide’s alleged role in allowing return of pilgrims from border caused spread of Covid-19

In response, the petitioner pleaded before the SC that instead of hearing the parties and considering their arguments, the IHC chief justice recorded his personal views and estimation in dismissing the petition.

This was done at a time when the SC, the petition argued, in an identical matter had considered this issue to be of great public importance.

The controversy stems from the fact when Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development Zulfi Bukhari allegedly used his influence to allow ‘Zaireen’ (pilgrims) from Iran to enter Pakistan from the Taftan border, without completing the 14-day quarantine requirement, after Iran allegedly ordered Pakistani pilgrims to leave the country.

The petition regretted that the government of Pakistan too failed to exercise diplomatic channels and influence over the neighbouring country to keep the pilgrims with it for a while and provide them with facilities in view of the prevailing situation.

Instead the pilgrims from Iran were shifted from the Taftan border to different cities of Pakistan, including Multan, Sukkur and Faisalabad, the petition alleged.

These areas, before the shifting of the pilgrim, were not affected by the coronavirus pandemic, the petition alleged.

When it was decided to shift 3,000 pilgrims out of the total of 9,000 from Taftan to Faisalabad and keep them in the hostels of the Agriculture University, the petition recalled, the IHC was approached to seek a directive that the pilgrims should not be allowed to move to Faisalabad, which then was not afflicted with the pandemic.

Instead of controlling the spread of the deadly virus, the petition alleged, the government unfortunately allowed the pilgrims to move to Faisalabad.

The petition highlighted that the purpose of moving the plea before the high court was to ensure that the lives of the people of this country, irrespective of their cast or creed, remained protected.

Emergency-like situation

The petition was filed in the high court as the pilgrims were returning back directly from a country which was badly affected by the coronavirus outbreak and that too without any medical test. Their arrival had created an emergency-like situation in the city.

Thus, the petition argued, the government failed to take proper measures in time to control the pandemic. It was a constitutional obligation of the federal government to properly quarantine persons coming from infected areas like China, Iran, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The petition also highlighted that even the country like Afghanistan timely sealed its borders that helped it in controlling the spread of the deadly virus.

The petition argued that the high court order was not in accordance with the law, adding that the government had failed to control the spread of the disease.

The petition alleged that some immature cabinet members were taking irrational steps.

The petition regretted that the IHC’s decision to dismiss the petition in such a manner on an important national issue of great public importance amounted to deny the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the high court under Article 199 of the Constitution and thus the high court acted entirely prejudicial to the interest of justice, law and the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, April 28th, 2020