Ban on marriage meals: SC issues warrants against violator
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, Jan 5: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday issued bailable arrest warrants against Hadi Bakhsh Jatoi, a close relative of a federal minister and summoned Fakhar-i-Azam, brother of the NWFP law minister, for violating ban on serving meals in marriage ceremonies and fixed February 15, for further proceedings in the matter.
A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and Justice M Javed Buttar was hearing complaints regarding violation of its earlier orders prohibiting serving of meal on marriages and holding of a marriage ceremony inside Hyderabad’s famous Niaz Stadium.
The bench issued bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs50,000, returnable to the Supreme Court Registrar, against Hadi Bakhsh Jatoi, Director General Health Sindh and a close relative of Federal Minister for Water and Power Liaquat Ali Jatoi, for hosting a marriage in Niaz Cricket Stadium.
According to reports, the December 17, 2005 marriage ceremony, was attended by around 5,000 guests, including Liaquat Jatoi, in utter violation of the Supreme Court orders by which meals on such festivities were banned. Main stage was set in the middle of the cricket pitch inside the stadium which is the city’s only international level cricket stadium.
The food for guests was cooked in around 100 cauldrons. Besides, over a hundred holes were created to set up tents for the marriage ceremony, which destroyed grass of the field.
The Supreme Court issued directions to the chief secretaries and Inspector Generals Police of the four provinces to implement its orders during marriage ceremonies otherwise they would be held responsible for the violation. The four chief secretaries have also been directed to prepare lists of hotels, restaurants, clubs, marriage-halls and public places where the marriages were solemnized and meals served in violation of the law and earlier orders of the apex court. They have been asked to issue warning to them through newspapers and issue separate notices for strict action if they failed to abide by the law and the orders.
These respondents would also ensure registration of cases against delinquents in the courts of law through notified officers, a five-page order said.
The courts seized with such matters have been directed to decide such cases expeditiously and dispatch a copy of each order passed by them to the registrar of the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court has also issued notices to Farooq Ahmed Lughari, a notified officer to check violations of the law in the area, Noor Mohammad Shoroo, taluka nazim concerned, deputy inspector general police Hyderabad and district police officer Hyderabad to appear in person at their own costs to explain as to why they failed to take action against the host for violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the Marriage Function (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance 2000.
Sindh chief Secretary has also been directed to examine as to what kind of departmental action could be taken against these officers who allowed the marriage ceremony in the stadium where meals were served and the law was violated under their nose.
The chief secretary was also directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing and submit comments indicating steps to enforce the ordinance and the earlier order of the apex court.
On a similar violation in Kohat, Law Minister NWFP Malik Zafar Azam appeared in person and inform the court that he had wrongly been mentioned as one of the hosts on the invitation card of the marriage of Malik Nayyer Azam Khattak, son of his brother Malik Fakhr-e-Azam.
The court decided to summon Fakhr-e-Azam and ask him to explain why action for contempt of court should not be initiated against him.
Mohammad Ishtiaq, a notified officer, was directed to procure the name and particulars of the secretary of the Garrison Club Kohat where the ceremony was held. The secretary was also directed to appear in person before the court on the February 15.
District Police Officer (DPO) and District Coordination Officer Kohat have been directed to submit their explanations as to why they failed to inform the authorities about the violation.
The Chief Secretary NWFP was directed to examine as to whether any department proceedings could be initiated against the DPO, the DCO and the notified officer who, being responsible officer, allowed violation of the law and the court order. The chief secretary was also directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing and state what steps had been taken by him to ensure implementation of the law and if in the meantime any violation has been committed then what action was taken by him.
The Supreme Court also issued notices to the concerned officers of Multan, Lahore, Karachi and Gujranwala on different complaints regarding violation of this law.