The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday, while hearing a case seeking filing of a high treason case against Nawaz Sharif, ruled that the court does not have the authority to directly order the registration of a case against the former prime minister.
In a decision announced by Justice Shams Mahmood Mirza, the court concluded that the interior minister will have to determine what action to take based on the relevant laws.
The interior minister has been directed to listen to both parties to the lawsuit and give a judgement based on the governing laws, the court ruled.
An application had been filed by Pakistan Awami Tehreek's Khurram Nawaz Gandapur after ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif issued controversial remarks regarding the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Criticising the stalled progress of the case's trial, Sharif in an interview had asked: "Why can’t we complete the trial?"
Earlier, on May 17, the LHC had dismissed a similar petition filed by Pakistan Zindabad Party chief Advocate Aftab Virk, who had sought registration of a case against Nawaz under Article 6 of the Constitution
Article 6 states: "Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason."
Provision of security protocol to Nawaz
The LHC also wrapped up a case filed against the provision of security and protocol to the ousted prime minister in the light of a statement issued by the deputy attorney general.
While hearing the case whose petition had been filed by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Andleeb Abbas, Justice Shahid Kareem remarked that Nawaz is being provided security and protocol up to the extent of his rightful claim after the supreme court had already ruled in the matter.
The case was dismissed after the federal government issued their response.
LHC hears case of anti-judiciary speeches
The LHC also heard a case regarding anti-judiciary speeches allegedly made by Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and other party leaders. It ordered Pemra to submit a detailed report before the next hearing.
Advocate Azhar Siddique requested that the court should also seek submission of reports with reference to other applications filed before the court.
To this, the court responded by saying, "Azhar Siddique sahab it is necessary to file a different application every time. Your purpose was to divert the court's attention which you have succeeded in."
"The real case has come to a halt. Now various applications are being addressed," he said.
"Why do you file a different application every time?" Justice Atir Mehmood inquired.
The hearing was adjourned until May 30.