ISLAMABAD, Sept 23: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Punjab government to explain what necessitated it to enact a law contrary to a federal government law still in force to check wasteful expenses matrimonial functions.
"Both the federal government as well as the provincial governments can make laws but the one which enacted first will hold the field," Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui observed while hearing a constitutional petition to rehear its earlier verdict of lifting the ban on wedding meals and wasteful expenses in marriage functions.
A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Javed Iqbal and Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jillani was rehearing the matter since the former chief justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed could not sign the judgment he announced earlier in November 2002 on the same matter.
A consortium of leading caterers, restaurant owners and poultry farmers has challenged the ban on serving food at matrimonial functions with the contention that the ban was against the injunctions of Islam.
On Thursday the court asked the Advocate-General of Punjab Shabbar Raza Rizvi to explain as to why the Punjab government promulgated the Punjab Marriages Functions (Prohibition and Ostentatious Display and Wasteful Expenses) Act 2003 totally in violation of the federal government law namely Marriage (Prohibition of Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance 2000, which earlier was introduced by Mr Nawaz Sharif during his second ter as the prime minister.
The federal government law restricts meals except hot or cold drinks in Walima receptions at public places, while the Punjab government ordinance allows serving of one-dish to guests not more than 300 in number.
"Perhaps this enactment of the Punjab government was made in indecent haste because of the SC judgment, which never existed, only to safeguard the interests of certain sections," observed Justice Javed Iqbal during the hearing.
"There is no rational behind introducing the law by the province and instead of some Ahadith about the Walima banquets, protection of some vested interests was in fact in the minds of the framers of the law," the judge said.
The Advocate-General of Punjab, however, argued that the provisions in the provincial government law, which were in contravention of the federal law, could be declared null and void by the top court and argued that the petition should not be entertained since it was not a matter of public interest.
He said Walima was even customary before the advent of Islam but was approved by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) besides the Federal Shariat Court in 1988 had already held that the federal government law of prohibiting meals at Walima was not against the injunctions of Islam.
Earlier, Maqbool Ellahi Malik advocate representing the petitioners opposed the restriction on Walima feast and quoted different Ahadith, Tafasir (Quranic interpretations) and precedence from the Islamic history to establish that Walima receptions were obligatory and it was depended upon the economic capacity of the host to arrange such parties even for seven days.
Therefore, he said, there should be no restriction on the number of invitees and the meals especially when Walima also provided an occasion of recreation in our society in the form of festivities and exchange of gifts.
During the course of arguments of Maqbool Ellahi Malik, both the chief justice and Justice Javed Iqbal observed that the purpose of Walima should be participation and not to feast. They also observed that many Islamic scholars were unanimous about the veracity of certain Ahadiths.
The chief justice also observed that there was no concept of lavishness in Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had always taught simplicity and the path of moderation. Deputy Attorney-General Raja Irshad while supporting the federal law stated that this law was enacted to discourage wasteful expenses in matrimonial functions, adding that social vices had led to carry horrifying consequences.
Both Advocates-General of Sindh and Balochistan adopted arguments of Advocate-General of the Punjab while the Advocate-General of the NWFP was asked by the bench to clarify certain points about the law. The court also asked the Advocate-General of Punjab to submit in writing detailed arguments within 10 days. The hearing was then adjourned for Friday.
MMA PETITION: The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned for October 14 the petition of the Muttahida Majlis-I-Amal (MMA), pleading the court to hold fresh elections in Karachi for two National Assembly seats.
MMA has challenged the recent declaration of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) candidates winner from Karachi during recently-held by-elections. A SC bench comprising Justice Hamid Ali Mirza and Justice Shakirullah Jan adjourned the hearing when Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry from the petitioners' side requested that a full bench should hear the election matter.
Advocate-General of Sindh Mansoor Alam Khan also supported the contention that the full bench should proceed with the case. Two MMA candidates Rashid Naseem and Qari Muhammad Usman contested the May 12, 2004 by-elections in Karachi from NA-246 and NA-240 respectively.
The petitioners have named 29 different parties as respondents in the petition, including the Election Commission of Pakistan, the Government of Sindh, returning officers and all contestants.
The petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Sindh High Court declaring MQM candidates winners from the two constituencies. In unofficial results MQM candidates Nisar Ahmed Pahnwwar and Muhammad Abid Ali Umang were declared successful while MMA candidates were runners-up.
The election commission, however, suspended the results after reports alleged irregularities and violence which killed eight people. An inquiry was initiated by the commission into the charges levelled against each other by contesting candidates and their respective political parties. MMA and the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), who had lost the elections, boycotted the inquiry.
The election commission on June 9 declared void the election on these two seats confirming that the polling process had been vitiated by grave illegalities and violation of law. Fresh election dates in these constituencies were also announced by the election commission on Aug 9. However, MQM candidates challenged the decision of the election commission in the Sindh High Court. The high court on July 23 decided the matter in favour of the MQM candidates.
