ISLAMABAD, Oct 7: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the Legal Framework Order (LFO), holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to question its promulgation at a time when the process for return to democracy had been initiated.

A special bench of the apex court, formed to hear the plea filed by Barrister Zafarullah Khan of the Watan Party, expressed doubts about the bona fide status of the petitioner’s party. “A substantial number of political parties contesting the Oct 10 elections are not in doubt about the law, but the petitioner is raising objections especially when he has boycotted the elections,” observed Justice Munir A Sheikh.

The judge also observed that the National Assembly would be the best forum where this issue should be raised.

At the outset of the hearing, Zafarullah Khan had invited the attention of the court towards a statement of Law Minister Khalid Ranjha and asked the court to initiate a contempt of the court proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution against Mr Ranjha as he had given a statement knowingly that the subject matter was pending before the court. “I want a clarification from him because he is a federal law minister,” the petitioner said.

Khalid Ranjha had reportedly stated that legislators elected in the general polls would be administered oath under the 1973 Constitution of which the LFO was now a component.

At this, Justice Sheikh reminded the petitioner another statement of the law minister in which he had stated that Parliament had the right to amend the LFO. The statement had nothing to do with the present case, the chief justice observed.

Mr Sheikh inquired from the petitioner about the legal status of his party, its office-bearers in the provinces, the strength of membership and whether his party was registered with the election commission or not.

However, the petitioner’s counsel insisted that his party had boycotted the elections on Aug 1, despite the registration with the Election Commission.

The judge also advised the petitioner that he had a remedy in the high court where he should go under Article 199 instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184.

The counsel argued that the court should summon the records about his party registration from the Election Commission, and explained that his party was not going to the high court because the promulgation of the LFO had violated earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah, Achakzai and Wukla Mohaz cases, in which it was held that salient features of the Constitution could not be touched.

When the counsel insisted that the petition was important and a litigation of public interest, the chief justice observed that if it was such an important issue then his party must have participated in the elections, which was the most important part of our lives.

“The best forum to raise this issue is the assembly after the elections,” Justice Sheikh observed, adding that why should his petition be entertained under Article 184 when he did not want to represent the nation in the Parliament while every other party was participating, and they were not in doubt about the LFO.

When the court sought opinion of Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan, he expressed his readiness to oppose the petition, and said that instead of technicalities, the court should decide the matter on merit. The court could also regulate its jurisdiction, and many a times this court had lowered the barrier of locus standi, he added.

The court then asked Sharifuddin Pirzada, who was representing the federation, about his views on the matter. He, however, said the matter was between the court and the petitioner.

Earlier, the federation in its reply had stated that the amendments made to the Constitution through the LFO did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The amendments were valid, proper and were not subject to judicial review. The federation also denied that any amendment was made to the salient features of the Constitution, and that in no way the LFO violated the federal and parliamentary character.

It also stated that the powers exercised by President Musharraf in promulgating the law were in consonance with the letter and spirit of the judgment in the Zafar Ali Shah case.

Besides, through the amendments, the party chief was not made a non-entity, and a reference to the Election Commission about disqualification introduced a check on the exercise of arbitrary powers, and accorded with the constitutional norms.

The federation also maintained that insertion of Article 58(2b) did not offend the basic structure of the Constitution and was within the limits of Zafar Ali Shah case.

It stated that the petitioner had maliciously attributed motives, levelled false allegations and ,therefore, he was not entitled to any relief.