ISLAMABAD, March 11: The Supreme Court has held that it exercises suo motu jurisdiction not as a matter of right and it cannot be invoked by moving a petition under Article 184(3) of the constitution.

The order came on an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court registrar, who had declined to accept a petition moved under Article 184(3) (original jurisdiction of the apex court on fundamental rights).

On Dec 20, 2005, the apex court’s registrar had returned Maulvi Iqbal Haider’s petition with an observation that he had already availed the remedy he was seeking, under Article 203-F of the constitution by filing a civil Shariat appeal against an order of the Federal Shariat Court.

In a nine-page detailed judgment, Justice Rana Bhagwandas said the question of entertainability of a petition under Article 184(3) of the constitution had remained the subject matter and it was consistent and unanimous view of the court that in a direct petition under the original jurisdiction, the question raised before the court must be a question of great national importance involving violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Citing the 1975 Manzoor Ellahi versus federation of Pakistan case, the judgment said parameters for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3) had been examined in the case and it was held that the power of the Supreme Court was subject to two limitations, namely that the case must involve a question of public importance and that the question must be with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

The court had authoritatively laid down that if a petitioner succeeded in establishing breach of fundamental right, he was entitled to relief in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, Justice Bhagwandas said.

However, the court could decline any relief if it considered that instead of advancing the cause of justice it would perpetuate injustice or where the court felt that it would not be just and proper to grant it, he observed.

Referring to the apex court’s suo motu cognizance in the Mukhtaran Mai case, which the petitioner had also cited in his appeal, Justice Bhagwandas said that in that case the court had exercised its jurisdiction due to unusual circumstances involving general public criticism against a judicial organ of the state, besides Mukhtaran Mai had also challenged acquittal of four accused.