ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court office has returned a petition seeking to settle the question over the legal status of two laws after President Arif Alvi’s claim that he never assented to them.

Last week, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), the pre­sident claimed he had not signed the Official Secrets (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill, 2023. The statement, which came a day after the two bills became law, triggered a massive controversy, which led to the president sacking his Principal Secretary Waqar Ahmed.

The petition, filed by Advocate Zulfikar Ahmed Bhutta, had requested the court to direct the federal government to seek its advice over the issue under Article 186 of the consti­tution within 10 days.

The said article deals with the advisory jurisdiction of the top court, which the government can invoke at any time by sending a reference to seek the court’s opinion on any ambiguity in law or the Constitution.

Click to see more

While returning the plea, the apex court’s registrar’s office objected that the applicant had raised “multifarious prayers” in a single constitutional petition.

Besides, the petitioner has also not pointed out what questions of public importance, with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights, were involved in this matter.

The petitioner was invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for the redressal of an individual grievance, which was not permissible, the registrar’s office stated.

The applicant has also not approached any other appropriate forum for relief and has not provided any justification for not doing so.

Advocate Bhutta had pleaded it was necessary to determine the legal status of the laws when the president had neither assented to nor returned the bills since.

He argued the situation “has the potential to create chaos” and there was a likelihood that the accused facing trials under the two laws may seek acquittal by exploiting the loopholes surrounding the laws’ constitutional standing.

The three-page petition was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The provision allowed the Supreme Court to take notice of any matter if it considered the matter pertinent to the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The petition argued the bills were of a sensitive nature as they would affect the accused who are booked under those laws.

If the matter was not resolved in time by the Supreme Court, future prosecution of the accused “will suffer badly and all efforts by the prosecution and investigation agencies will become fruitless and frustrated under these bills,” the petition had pleaded.

Advocate Bhutta expressed the apprehension that acquitted persons may also file cases against officials of law enforcement agencies and other officers under Sections 219 and 220 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

Section 219 outlined a punishment of up to seven years for public servants who “makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law.”

Likewise, Section 220 carried a similar punishment for government officials — empowered to arrest or prosecute any individual — found exercising their authority against the law.

On Aug 20, President Alvi said he had asked his staff to return the bills unsigned within the stipulated time to make them ineffective.

Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2023