ISLAMABAD, June 12: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to Shah Ahmad Noorani, president of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, the All Pakistan Newspapers Society and to an Urdu newspaper for making and publishing a statement about the status of the apex court.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up two constitutional petitions and one civil miscellaneous application, all filed by Dr Aslam Khaki, a self-proclaimed probono publico.
Mr Khaki has brought to the notice of the apex court that Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani, while commenting on the outcome of his constitutional petition in which he challenged the educational qualification of 68 legislators, had said that Pakistan’s Supreme Court was not a constitutional court as it had taken oath under the Constitution. Dr Khaki has asked the court to prosecute the MMA president for committing contempt of court.
The SC, after issuing notice to Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani, also issued notice to the APNS through its president and the newspaper which published the statement.
According to petitioner-counsel, the APNS is issued notice to explain if it had any responsibility before publishing any statement or news about the judiciary. No date was announced for its next hearing.
The same court took up the constitutional petition of the same petitioner in which he questioned the authority of the NWFP Assembly to enact laws for the enforcement of Shariat in the province.
Arguing the petition, he said the responsibility of enforcement of Shariat was not of the provincial assembly, but of parliament. The framers of the Constitution, he said, provided a separate chapter in the Constitution, titled “Islamic Provisions”, in which it had been explicitly spelled out which body was responsible for the enforcement of Islamic teachings. Constitutional bodies, like the Council of Islamic Ideology and Federal Shariat Court had been established with the explicit purpose of examining laws for bringing them in conformity with the Islamic injunctions, he argued.
He contended that if the provincial assembly was given the power to interpret and enforce Islamic code, then every province would have different Shariat laws in the country. The petitioner said he was not against Islamization, but was averse to enforcement of bigoted views of one religious group.
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry observed that parliament had already enacted the Shariat Bill in 1991, which is on the statutes as Act 10 of 1991.
The court asked the petitioner to place the copies of the Shariat Bill, which had become an act of the assembly. The court gave two weeks time to the petitioner.
When the bench took up his another constitutional petition in which he challenged the educational qualification of 68 legislators, mainly from the MMA, Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan said he had not been provided with the amended petition. Until he was provided the amended petition, he could not argue the case.
The court directed the petitioner to immediately provide the amended petition to the AG, and asked the AG to submit a concise statement on Thursday, detailing the government position on the points raised in the petition.
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry asked the AG to be very careful in drafting the government’s response on the points raised in the petition, as large number of similar petitions might be coming up after the decision of the present petition.
The petition challenging the educational qualification of 68 legislators would be taken up for hearing on Friday.