ISLAMABAD: Replies filed on Thursday by four political parties to notices issued by the Supreme Court requested it to stay clear from getting involved in a complex political matter – resolving the issue of the sit-ins at the Constitution Avenue.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed of the Awami Muslim League said that invoking constitutional jurisdiction by the Supreme Court for settling issues between political parties is unprecedented. Therefore, the court should exercise judicial restraint.

Otherwise, he argued, it would open floodgates of litigation and the court’s sacrosanct jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution would become a mockery of constitutional powers that should always be exercised for people’s welfare and public good and not for protecting the monarchical system of governance.

“Real democracy is the hallmark of any system and peaceful struggle for the same should not be interfered (with),” he said, adding that political parties were engaged in dialogue and both sides – the government and the protesting parties – were moving towards an amicable political solution.

Sheikh Rashid of Awami Muslim League says real democracy is the hallmark of any system and peaceful struggle for the same should not be suppressed

The current circumstances and crisis were purely political in nature where the protesting parties – the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek – were fighting for political justice, Sheikh Rashid said, adding that this was an area where the solution was only political and not judicial.

The Constitution has introduced a concept of separation of power under which three institutions – the judiciary, executive and the legislature – are independent of each other, without interference by one in the domain of other.

Sheikh Rashid requested the court to dismiss the petition moved by the Rawalpindi High Court Bar Association.

Aitzaz Ahsan of the Pakistan People’s Party reposed full confidence in the Supreme Court and recognised its strident role in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, but requested the court to refrain from prescribing the contours to regulate the political activities envisaged in Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution.

Article 15 guarantees freedom of movement, Article 16 ensures freedom of assembly and Article 17 deals with the right of assembly.

The reply urged the Supreme Court to leave the law envisaged in these provisions of the Constitution to the domain of parliament and respective provincial assemblies.

The PAT emphasised in its reply that parliament should have formulated solution to the current impasse, instead of jumping into the government bandwagon.

It said that the petition was not maintainable to resolve a dispute which essentially was political, concerning political parties and the government.

“While examining the matter under Article 184(3), any directions to define and control dharnas generally may not give an unlimited and absolute authority to all governments in future to suppress all dissent and counter opinions ruthlessly which could do more harm and good for the cause of democracy.”

The PAT said the objective of the dharna was to seek justice from the sitting government for killing 14 innocent people and injuring more than 85 innocent citizens. This action of the government is not acceptable in any civilised democracy and is itself unconstitutional and hence provides a specific justification for the dharna. Particularly the saga of not registering an FIR is itself an indication of impossibility of getting justice so long as the named accused are in high positions and can influence the course of investigation.

It said the government could end this impasse without the court’s intervention by taking a logical and just decision.

“Accordingly a declaration regarding the scope or legality of dharna or any direction in this behalf by the court may not only affect the right of PAT but also of any future political protest and hence judicial restraint should be exercised by the court.”

The Jamaat-i-Islami has submitted a similar reply.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2014