ISLAMABAD, Feb 19: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the attorney-general to explain why President Gen Pervez Musharraf was opposing a legislation passed by the NWFP assembly for enforcement of Islamic system in the province.

“Legislation is the right of parliament. Why are you opposing a good piece of legislation that is meant for enforcement of Islamic injunctions,” questioned Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, a member of the larger bench of the apex court hearing a presidential reference against the Hasba Bill.

Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that the bill was vague because it did not mention which sect or school would be followed for adjudication by the Mohtasib. This would ultimately lead to chaos and confusion, he argued.

Justice Ramday said Islamic injunctions were mentioned even in the Constitution. “Would you call it a vague constitution? If it is so then will all our Islamic laws and provisions be rendered ineffective,” he asked.

The attorney-general said the office of Mohtasib already existed under the local government system. But a Mohtasib could only give recommendations and could not prosecute anyone.

He submitted that Islam abhorred coercion for promoting religion. It would be against the spirit of Islam to enforce it with the use of police force and certain punishments and convictions, he said.

Concluding his arguments, the attorney-general contended that the bill contained many unconstitutional and illegal clauses, including judicial powers for the office of Mohtasib.

Under the Hasba Bill, a government-appointed cleric called a Mohtasib would ensure adherence to Islamic values in public places. He would guide the provincial administration, protect and watch Islamic values and etiquettes and ensure that media publications were useful for the purpose of upholding Islamic values.

Mr Khan said there were fears that widely vague, undefined and open-ended powers would create ‘Taliban-style rule’ in the province. The open-ended powers would lead to abuse of these powers, he said.

The bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, however, directed the attorney-general to submit a comparative chart showing differences between the previous and present bill passed by the NWFP Assembly.

The attorney-general submitted that the impugned bill violated certain provisions of the Constitution. He said it was also ultra vires to the Local Government Ordinance.