2013 PLP 1683 (SCMR)
Moulvi IQBAL HAIDER and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Law and Justice and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1683 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain and Ejaz Afzal Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Moulvi IQBAL HAIDER and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Law and Justice and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1683 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1683 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain and Ejaz Afzal Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1683 (SCMR) (Moulvi IQBAL HAIDER and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Law and Justice and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Siddique Khan Baloch, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.2255 of 2010).
- Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Taufeeq Asif, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.14 of 2013).
- Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.16 of 2013).
- Sheikh Ahsan ud Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.17 of 2013).
- Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Abdul Hakeem Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.18 of 2013).
- Ahmed Raza Khan Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Constitutional Petitions Nos.14 and 17 of 2013).
- Qamar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2013) assisted by facilitated by Ms. Zainab Raza Effendi, LLM, (Warwick University U.K.), Ms. Rehana Zaman, LLM (Islamic University, Pakistan), Nabeel Rehman, LLM (University of Newcastle, UK), Ms. Amina Iqbal, Bar-at-Law (University of Northumbria, UK), Ms. Zohra Khokhar, LLB. (Hons. (University of Northumbria, UK), Zain Rehman, LLB (University of Birmingham, UK), Raja Asjid Iqbal Satti, Advocate.
- Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ms. Shazia Yasin Hashmi, Advocate High Court for Respondents (in Constitutional Petitions Nos.2255 of 2010 and 18 of 2013).
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2013.
- Dr. Sher Ali Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.2705 of 2013).
- 3. We are consciously, deliberately and as submitted by Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent not touching the question of "abrogation" or "subversion" or "holding in abeyance the Constitution" or "any conspiracy in that behalf" or indeed the question of suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance or the issue as to abetment or collaboration in the acts mentioned in Article 6 of the Constitution. This is so because any finding/observation or view expressed by us may potentially result in prejudice to the inquiry/investigation or subsequent trial should that take place as a result of such investigation.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 6 & 184(3)
Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution seeking direction from the Supreme Court to the Federal Government to lodge a complaint under Art. 6 of the Constitution against General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others for the action imposing state of emergency by him in the country on November 3, 2007
High treason
Inquiry Committee and Commission, constitution of
Statement filed by Attorney-General in the Supreme Court regarding details of actions envisaged by the Federal Government in regard to the present matter and the process through which such actions would be given effect stated that Prime Minister had directed the Secretary Interior to forthwith direct the Director General of Federal Investigation Agency to constitute a special investigative team of senior officers to commence an inquiry and investigation in relation to the acts of General (R) Pervez Musharraf of 3rd November, 2007 that might amount to "high treason" under Art. 6 of the Constitution and to finalize as expeditiously as possible the statement of case to be put up by the Federal Government before the Special Court to be constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976; that in order to ensure expeditious completion of the inquiry and investigation, the Prime Minister was also considering the constitution of a Commission to oversee and monitor the progress of the proceedings; that on the completion of the investigation, the Federal Government shall file the requisite complaint under S.5 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976 and take steps to constitute the Special Court in accordance with S.4 of the said Act for the trial of the offence
Prayer made by the petitioners in the present petition effectively appeared to have been accepted by the (Federal) Government (in view of the statement filed by the Attorney-General)
Attorney-General had stated that the government had constituted an Inquiry Committee comprised of senior functionaries of the Federal Investigation Agency and it would be upto the said Committee to undertake the investigation
Supreme Court observed that it expected that such investigation shall be concluded without unnecessary delay; that court was consciously and deliberately not touching the question of "abrogation" or "subversion" or "holding in abeyance the Constitution" or "any conspiracy in that behalf" or indeed the question of suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance or the issue as to abetment or collaboration in the acts mentioned in Art. 6 of the Constitution, because any finding/observation or view expressed by the Supreme Court (in such regard) might potentially result in prejudice to the inquiry/investigation or subsequent trial should that take place as a result of such investigation and that the Federal Government shall proceed (with the present matter) as per its undertaking without unnecessary delay
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Applicant in person (in C.M. Appeal No.157 of 2009). Dr. Sher Ali Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.2705 of 2013). Applicants in person (in C.M.As. Nos.2335 to 2337, 2368 and 2705 of 2013). Munir A. Malik, Attorney-General for Pakistan and Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, D.A.-G. for Federation.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners in all these petitions have prayed that the Federal Government be directed to lodge a complaint under Article 6 of the Constitution against the respondent General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others. The Federal Government had filed an initial statement which has been reproduced in our order of 24-6-2013. In the said order, we had asked the learned Attorney-General to file a further statement "providing details of the actions envisioned by the Federal Government in the light of the present petitions and the process through which such actions will be given effect". Pursuant to the said order of 24-6-2013, the learned Attorney-General filed the following statement on 26-6-2013:-- "(1) The Prime Minister has directed the Secretary Interior to forthwith direct the Director-General FIA to constitute a special investigative team of senior officers to commence an inquiry and investigation in relation to the acts of General (R) Parvez Musharraf of 3rd November, 2007 that may amount to high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution and to finalize as expeditiously as possible the statement of case to be put up by the Federal Government before the Special Court to be constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976. (2) The Law entrusts the investigation of the offence of high treason to the FIA under entry No.14 of the Schedule of the FIA Act, 1974 read with sections 3(a) and 6 thereof. However, in order to ensure expeditious completion of the inquiry and investigation, the Prime Minister is also considering the constitution of a Commission to oversee and monitor the progress of the proceedings. (3) On the completion of the investigation, the Federal Government shall file the requisite complaint under section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976 and take steps to constitute the Special Court in accordance with section 4 of the said Act for the trial of the offence."
2. The prayer in these petitions thus effectively appears to have been accepted by the Government. Moreover, the learned counsel representing the petitioners had also expressed their satisfaction with the statement, subject only to a reservation that no time frame for the inquiry had been given for conclusion of the inquiry/investigation of the case which was to be initiated by the Government. The learned Attorney General has stated that the government has constituted an Inquiry Committee comprised of senior functionaries of the FIA and it will be upto the said Committee to undertake the investigation. We can expect that such investigation shall be concluded without unnecessary delay. We may also note that the learned counsel representing the respondent had also stated on the previous date of hearing that these matters to be brought to an end in view of the statement filed by the Federal Government on 26-6-2013 as reproduced above. In addition, we had also taken into consideration the resolution of the Senate dated 23-1-2012 and have taken judicial notice of the speech of the President and that of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the Parliament.
3. We are consciously, deliberately and as submitted by Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent not touching the question of "abrogation" or "subversion" or "holding in abeyance the Constitution" or "any conspiracy in that behalf" or indeed the question of suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance or the issue as to abetment or collaboration in the acts mentioned in Article 6 of the Constitution. This is so because any finding/observation or view expressed by us may potentially result in prejudice to the inquiry/investigation or subsequent trial should that take place as a result of such investigation.
4. The Federal Government has, as noted above, proceeded in furtherance of its constitutional obligation envisioned in Article 6 of the Constitution and for the present this suffices in terms of the said Article and the reliefs respectively sought by the petitioners in these petitions. We, therefore, dispose of these petitions in the above terms with the observation that the Federal Government shall proceed as per undertaking dated 26-6-2013, reproduced above without unnecessary delay. MWA/I-6/SC Order accordingly.