QUETTA, Oct 1: A division bench of the Balochistan High Court called on Monday for a written explanation from the attorney general and deputy attorney general and standing counsel for boycotting the proceedings of the court.

The explanation was sought from Attorney General Irfan Qadir, Deputy Attorney General Malik Sikandar Khan and standing counsel Chaudhry Mumtaz Yousuf and Rauf Ata.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan was hearing a petition of Dr Mohammad Abdullah against the Ministry of Science and Technology.

The federal government is respondent in the case, but no-one attended the proceedings on its behalf as mark of protest.

The court said an employee of the office of the deputy attorney general had placed on record a fax sent from Islamabad titled as ‘press statement’.The attorney general and the deputy attorney general decided to boycott the proceedings of the Supreme Court and high courts in protest against an order passed by the Supreme Court on Sept 27.

The judges said that in view of the most unusual press statement “we are not aware that such a course of action has ever been adopted by constitutional office holders”.

The court asked senior advocates W. N. Kohli and Zahid Muqeem Ansari and Additional Advocate General Tariq Ali Tahir to assist it on the point that “whether a constitutional office-holder and law officers appointed under a statute can boycott court proceedings”.

“The counsel should explain that such a conduct is not appropriate and Mr Kohli should go to state that prima facie such conduct constitutes contempt of court.”

The court observed that boycott of proceedings might also be construed as obstructing the process of law and “whether a person who holds constitutional office and the law officer by not appearing in court does not violate Article 100 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970”.

The court said that boycott of proceedings by the attorney general and law officers delayed disposal of cases and smooth functioning of the court and prevented citizens from availing themselves of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The court appointed Mr Kohli as amicus to assist the court in respect of the questions raised herein.

The hearing was adjourned till Oct 15.