ISLAMABAD, Oct 3: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the federal government to state its position regarding the status of Legal Framework Order, explaining whether it had come into force or would be effective from the date of revival of the Constitution.

A special bench, which was constituted to hear the constitutional petition challenging the promulgation of LFO, was asked by the petitioner-counsel to dispose of his petition with the observation that the LFO’s status was merely one of proposal and would come into effect only after the approval of the parliament.

The bench, headed by the chief justice, asked the attorney general to state the government’s position. The AG informed the court that the federal government had not been issued notice and he was before the court in his capacity as attorney general and not as a representative of the federal government.

The court, after issuance of notice to the federal government, adjourned the case without giving any specific date.

The SC bench consisted of Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz, Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, and Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq.

The petitioner, Zafarullah Khan, chairman of Watan Party, stated that it had been observed by the members of the bench repeatedly during the course of hearing that no notification had been issued for giving effect to the LFO.

He said he would be content if the court made an observation that the LFO’s status was nothing more than (a set of) proposals for constitutional amendments, and would be enforced only after the approval of the parliament.

Justice Munir A. Sheikh observed that only the federal government could make a statement in this regard. It had been observed by the members of the bench that the parliament’s power to amend the Constitution would be restored when it was revived and those powers could be used for rejecting the LFO.

Justice Munir A. Sheikh observed: “Article 239 is still in the Constitution, and could be pressed into service by the members of the parliament.”

When the petitioner said that if the court disposed of his petition with the observation that the LFO was nothing more than (a set of) proposals, Justice Munir observed: “We are going beyond what you are asking for.”

Justice Munir explained that even if the government did not place the LFO before the parliament for its approval, any member could place it before the house as a private bill and then reject it.

Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry observed that Section four of LFO itself provided that it would be effective only after the appointment of a date by the president for the revival of the Constitution.

When the petitioner-counsel argued that 58(2) (B) which was removed by the parliament, representing the “will of the people,” the judges observed the Supreme Court had expressed its opinion regarding the same article.

Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that if 58(2)(B) had not been repealed, we would not have been in the situation where we are now. “The amendment was repealed in five minutes, and now the whole nation is suffering,” he stated.

The members of the bench observed that the word “discretion” has been properly defined by the Supreme Court in a number of cases pertaining to dissolution of assemblies under the same article. It was observed that discretion did not mean subjective but objective assessment of the situation.

When it was observed that the president could be impeached if he was not acting in violation of the Constitution, the petitioner responded that there were so many provisions in the Constitution, including Article 6, defining high treason, but such provisions were not invoked easily.

The petitioner further stated that by establishing National Security Council, the supremacy of the parliament was being challenged.

Justice Munir A. Sheikh further observed that the parliament was coming into existence in ten days’ time and let’s see its reaction to the NSC.

Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the proposal of NSC was not new and when it was proposed in 1985, the parliament had refused to approve it.