ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was told on Saturday that the joint statement filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUIF) seeking recusal of two judges from the bench hearing the suo motu case on elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) was against the law and facts.
Eleven lawyers, including Shaukat Ali Joya, Zahid Anwar Javed and Malik Wahad Hussain, filed an application in the Supreme Court praying for allowing them to become a party to the case in the interest of justice and public.
They submitted that it was the matter of supremacy of the Constitution and they wanted to assist the court as per the sentiment of public.
They contended that the matter regarding the Constitution of any bench was prerogative of the chief justice of Pakistan, adding that it was in these extraordinary circumstances that the court, being cognisant of its duty to protect and to uphold the 1973 Constitution, took suo motu notice of the matter of public importance.
They contended that one month had passed after the dissolution of the provincial assemblies of Punjab and KP but the relevant quarters were avoiding their constitutional role for holding general elections of these provincial assemblies.
“It is of paramount importance to note here that these political parties, PMLN, PPP and JUIF, are the beneficiary of the current scenario having their caretaker governments and governors in both the provinces,” they submitted.
They further stated that the joint statement was submitted only to influence the court in order to delay the important matter of public importance, adding that it was the duty of the petitioners and all legal fraternity to assist the court for the supremacy of the Constitution.
“The joint statement filed by the three political parties was against the law and facts, and they tried to influence the court which may not be permitted,” the petitioners submitted.
They recalled that in the case of Dost Muhammad Laghari CO No3988/2022, almost the same objection regarding constitution of larger bench was turned down by the Supreme Court.
They prayed the apex court to be impleaded as party in the suo motu case to assist the court.
