ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday disposed of a petition seeking production orders for the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) lawmaker Syed Khursheed Shah observing that it couldn't instruct the Speaker National Assembly under Article 69 of the Constitution.
Chief Justice IHC Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the authority rested with the National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser to issue production orders under Rule 108 and the court couldn't pass to him any order.
Khursheed Shah's lawyer Farook H. Naek said the matter of exemption of parliamentary proceedings under Article 69 was pending with a division bench.
Justice Minallah remarked that the court had also clarified that it could not issue a writ in violation of Rule 108. He asked whether the petitioner had approached the NA Speaker through the opposition leader. He observed that the court intervention would violate the honor of Parliament, adding that the court didn't even want to go to the depth of the matter, as it respected the supremacy of the institution.
Earlier, the court reserved its judgment on maintainability of the case and later disposed it of. The court stated in its order that Article 69 stopped it from issuing instructions to the NA Speaker. The court expected that the NA Speaker would take a decision on the matter keeping in view the interests of people of NA-206 constituency.
The NA speaker has powers under Rule 108, the decision said, adding that the petitioner could approach him for the relief.
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