ISLAMABAD: A journalist on Monday questioned the Supreme Court office decision to return his petition challenging the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2019.

On Dec 30 last year, Farrukh Nawaz Bhatti had challenged the NAB amended ordinance on the grounds that it created an exception by giving relief to the bureaucrats and businessmen.

But the SC registrar office returned the petition by highlighting different objections regarding its maintainability and suggested that different forums other than the apex court be approached.

Now the petitioner has questioned the SC office decision, stating that the issue involves the fundamental rights since he had raised 22 different questions of public importance.

On Dec 26, the government had promulgated an ordinance, bringing some amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance and providing relief to the businessmen and bureaucrats.

In response, the petitioner requested the apex court to suspend the new ordinance’s operation till the disposal of his petition.

While responding to the objection for making the prime minister a party in the petition, the petitioner explained that the federal government exercises powers under the supervision of the prime minister; besides Article 248 of the Constitution also imposes no such restriction when the federal government is impleaded in a case.

Moreover, the president acted on the advice of the prime minister under Article 48 to promulgate the ordinance and thus the appellant was left with no option but to implead the federal government through the prime minister.

As a matter of utmost public importance which affected the fundamental rights of the appellant as well as the general public, the filing of the petition before the high court would have defeated its purpose due to the multiplicity of the litigation with possibility of conflicting judgments on the issue which is of public importance and directly connected with the enforcement of the fundamental rights.

The appeal highlighted that the questions raised in the petition were questions of interpretation of law and the Constitution and of public importance. The objections of the SC office are not sustainable and, therefore, this appeal should be placed before a bench for a decision even on the question of maintainability of the petition.

The petitioner argued that by allowing the public and civil servants to allegedly run the affairs of the state according to their whims, the law provides a blanket authority to violate the procedures under the pretext of good faith.

Published in Dawn, January 7th, 2020