ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) has raised certain questions, challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear petitions challenging the ongoing sit-ins on Constitution Avenue.

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), however, argued on Tuesday that the petitions moved by a number of high court bar associations – challenging possible unconstitutional actions by state functionaries as well as the legality of the sit-ins – were, in fact, maintainable on the principle of ‘political justice’.

A five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, will resume hearing a set of 11 petitions on the matter from Wednesday.

Political parties in parliament were asked by the apex court to submit replies on the petitions. Senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan filed replies on behalf of the PPP and JI, whereas Advocate Yousuf Khosa submitted a set of questions before the court on behalf of the PTI.

The counsel for PTI asked if the apex court could issue guidelines for actions such as sit-ins and whether there were any laws regulating such demonstrations in the country.

PPP, JI insist challenges to legality of sit-in are maintainable

However, Mr Ahsan maintained that the court can pass any “just and fair order” as might be deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

To support his argument, Mr Ahsan cited the Asghar Khan case of 2013, where the Supreme Court had held that no role could be played by “secret agencies or officials thereof” in the “political affairs of the country” or “holding of free and fair elections” to “favour one political party, group or individual over another”.

In the judgment, the court had stated that Inter-Services Intelligence or Military Intelligence could discharge their duties in terms of safeguarding the borders of Pakistan or providing civil aid to the federal government.

But they could not play a role in political activities for the formulation or destabilisation of political governments.

They could also not facilitate or favour a particular political party or group of parties or politicians individually, in any manner.

Similarly, in its judgment of July 31, 2009, the apex court had held that any action by the armed forces, undertaken without a direction by the federal government, will be unconstitutional, illegal, void ab initio and consequently of no legal effect.

The judgment had also held that if any member of the armed forces – irrespective of rank – or any person acting under their authority, acts without the directions of the federal government, they would be violating the Constitution and would do so at their own peril.

Mr Ahsan’s reply on behalf of the JI and PPP said that no issue, whether political or otherwise, could be taken outside the ambit of the ‘basic concept of supremacy of constitution’.

This includes provincial autonomy, now fully secured under the provisions of the 18th Amendment, he said.

This obviously means that allegations of ‘rigging’ could not be made grounds for the dissolution of any provincial assembly or government otherwise.

Published in Dawn, September 10th , 2014