ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court asked the law officers of the federal and provincial governments on Wednesday to weigh in on a federal government appeal that states that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the high courts was not proper.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, issued notices to Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt and the four advocates general, directing them to submit their replies on the law ministry’s appeal.

The appeal was moved against the suspension of a notification regarding the appointment of the chairman of Drugs Court Karachi, which was struck down by the Sindh High Court on April 15.

The federal government has sought suspension of the high court order, which had converted a note from its registrar office into a constitutional petition and then went ahead and suspended the notification regarding the appointment of Khalid Mumtaz as the chairman of Drugs Court.

On April 6, the SHC forwarded three nominations for the post of chairman following a request on the part of the law ministry to suggest a panel of candidates.

On April 8, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif approved the appointment of Mr Mumtaz – whose name was second on the list sent in by the SHC – as chairman.

But on April 14, the SHC registrar put up a note before the Sindh chief justice, stating that Sofia Latif – a retired district and sessions judge – had been nominated for the post of Drugs Court chairperson, but the law ministry notified Mr Mumtaz instead.

Consequently, the SHC chief justice ordered the conversion of the registrar’s note into a constitutional petition and fixed the matter before a high court division bench. The following day, the bench suspended the notification.

On Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mahmood argued before the Supreme Court that the law ministry had contended that the initiation of suo motu proceedings by the high court was an improper exercise of judicial powers.

The ministry also contended that the high court did not have any jurisdiction to issue a writ exercising suo motu powers while there was neither any warrant nor any individual who challenged the federal government’s nomination.

In such matters, the appeal contended, the high court should confine itself only to relief claimed through a petition and, therefore, had no authority in a suo motu jurisdiction to suspend the appointment notification.

The appeal had argued that the proceedings before the high court were liable to be set aside since it never afforded any right of hearing to the law ministry or Mr Mumtaz.

The petition stated that the purpose of the appeal was to have an authoritative pronouncement on the legal aspect since inviolable constitutional rights were not given to the petitioner (the law ministry) and Mr Mumtaz.

Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play