PESHAWAR: The Pakhtun Think-Tank has stressed the need for the rational use of water. In its meeting held with chairman Syed Akhtar Ali Shah in the chair, the participants discussed the issue of water storage in Pakistan.
They stated that think-tank respected the decisions of the judiciary and strongly believe in its independence but at the same time it also stresses the principle of trichotomy of powers upon which the whole edifice of the present Constitution of Pakistan rests. The participants of the meeting stated that apart from Article 6 which deals with the abrogation, suspension and circumvention of the Constitution, Article 4 protects the rights of the citizens. No citizen can be deprived of his rights enshrined in the law. They said the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and any curb on the academic debate on issues including that of storage of water and its historic rights to use by individuals and provinces amounts to a negation of Article 6 of the Constitution.
The participants asserted that individual rights of irrigation were regulated under the Riawje e Abashi and Irrigation Act. Moreover, rights of the provinces for use of irrigated water from rivers have been protected under the Water Accord of 1991. The Constitution of Pakistan also provides a mechanism in the form of Council of Common Interests for resolution of conflicts.
The participants cautioned that any step not in accordance with Article 4 and other auxiliary laws will not be in the national interest, therefore, be avoided.
Court asked appellants to satisfy it on next hearing that how decision of single bench was not right
Petitioner’s lawyer informed court that parliament had passed 26th Constitutional Amendment
CM urged people to choose between resisting oppression and embracing freedom or continuing under shackles of slavery
Committee emphasised need for effective legislation to safeguard rights of parliamentarians
Muzammil Aslam highlighted need for 5,000 watersheds in KP, requiring an investment of Rs 115 billion
Justice Shahzad observed that with support of appellant, 85% power theft was witnessed in his locality