Pata executive magistrates unconstitutional: PHC

Published April 30, 2015
PHC orders amendment to Nizam-i-Adl Regulation to end judicial powers of executive officers. -PPI/File
PHC orders amendment to Nizam-i-Adl Regulation to end judicial powers of executive officers. -PPI/File

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday declared the functioning of executive magistrates in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Pata) under the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation 2009 unconstitutional and directed the government to make suitable amendments in the Regulation within six months.

A bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Irshad Qaiser disposed of six petitions challenging the functioning of executive magistrates in Pata comprising Malakand division along with some other provisions of the Nizam-i-Adl Regulation (NAR) 2009.

It pronounced a short order after completion of arguments by all parties.


Orders amendment to Nizam-i-Adl Regulation to end judicial powers of executive officers


The bench directed the government to make suitable amendments in the NAR to end judicial powers assigned to executive officers.

The executive magistracy, which was abolished in the entire country in 2001 by the then military government of Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf by amending the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), was revived in Malakand Division under section 5 (5) and section 7 (4) of the NAR, which provided judicial powers to executive officers who were not under the administrative control of the Peshawar High Court.

The petitioners in these cases were a former district nazim, Yousaf Ayub, who had challenged the executive magistracy in his capacity as president of Local Council Association, an inhabitant of Swat Barrister Dr Adnan Khan, and four others.

Barrister Adnan appeared in person, lawyer Farhat Nawaz Lodhi represented Yousaf Ayub and Advocate Qazi Zakiuddin appeared for two other petitioners.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general Abdul Lateef Yousafzai and additional attorney general Syed Attique Shah represented the provincial and federal governments, respectively, and contended that the NAR was in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan. They contended that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor had promulgated the regulation with the approval of the President of Pakistan under Article 247 of the Constitution.

They argued that the law was introduced in extra ordinary times when normal courts had stopped functioning there because of militancy.

The two also said the impugned system introduced in Pata was in accordance with the aspirations of the inhabitants of those areas and it had been functioning so far successfully without public complaints.

The petitioners’ lawyers said Section 5(5) of the NAR provided establishment of courts of executive magistrates.

They added that following the promulgation of the NAR in 2009 the deputy commissioners in the seven districts of Pata were assigned powers of district magistrate whereas assistant commissioners were empowered to act as sub-divisional magistrate.

The lawyers contended that neither the executive magistrates existed in any other law nor the presiding officer of court of executive magistrate came under the ambit of Qazi as defined in the Regulation.

They contended that qazis would be judicial officers under the administrative control of the Peshawar High Court.

The lawyers argued that the executive magistrate were empowered to deal with those cases under the Pakistan Penal Code which were punishable up to three years imprisonment; local and special laws; cases pertaining to breach of peace and public nuisance, and cases pertaining to deviations of licenses and permits under relevant laws.

They said the NAR had empowered the executive magistrates to perform judicial functions putting them under the administrative control of the deputy commissioner, which was against the Constitution as well as several judgments of the superior courts.

The lawyers said Article 175 (3) of the Constitution clearly stated that the judiciary should be separated from the executive within 14 years.

Barrister Adnan also pointed out that Article 10-A of the Constitution guaranteed fair trial but under the executive magistracy, the executive had been acting as complainant as well as judicial officer and in that case fair trial was not possible.

Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2015

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

Opinion

Editorial

Back to politics
Updated 29 Nov, 2022

Back to politics

PDM and PTI must realise that neither will get what they want if they keep fighting bitterly at every turn.
Election delay
29 Nov, 2022

Election delay

OF recent, leaders from the ruling PML-N have been dropping hints about a possible delay in general elections after...
Sugar woes
29 Nov, 2022

Sugar woes

IT’S that time of year again when cane growers get anxious over the delay in the commencement of the new sugar...
1971 in retrospect
Updated 28 Nov, 2022

1971 in retrospect

The point of no return came when the military launched Operation Searchlight in March 1971.
Gender-based violence
28 Nov, 2022

Gender-based violence

IT is a war without boundaries and seemingly without end. A UN report on femicide released on Nov 25, the...
Battle against dacoits
28 Nov, 2022

Battle against dacoits

THE Punjab police is clearly fighting a formidable, and so far losing, battle against the criminal gangs based in ...