LHC approves protection order of Shahid Khaqan Abbasi to attend NA

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
Serious Question if anyone knows the answer : How is a provincial court able to hear and give judgement on federal matters? How can it order the federal govt ?

Also how was this provincial court able to stop a JIT ordered by the Supreme Court for investigation into Model Town?

Are all of these really in jurisdiction of a provincial court?
 

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Serious Question if anyone knows the answer : How is a provincial court able to hear and give judgement on federal matters? How can it order the federal govt ?

Also how was this provincial court able to stop a JIT ordered by the Supreme Court for investigation into Model Town?

Are all of these really in jurisdiction of a provincial court?

199
Jurisdiction of High Court.

(1)​
Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,-​

(a)​
on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order-​

(i)​
directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or​
(ii)​
declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or​
(b)​
on the application of any person, make an order-​

(i)​
directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner; or​
(ii)​
requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office; or​
(c)​
on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person or authority, including any Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II.​
(2)​
Subject to the Constitution, the right to move a High Court for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II shall not be abridged.​
458[​

(3)​
An order shall not be made under clause (1) on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces, in respect of his terms and conditions of service, in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or as a person subject to such law.​
] 458459[] 459

(4)​
Where- the Court shall not make an interim order unless the prescribed law officer has been given notice of the application and he or any person authorised by him in that behalf has had an opportunity of being heard and the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that the interim order-​

(a)​
an application is made to a High Court for an order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of clause (1), and​
(b)​
the making of an interim order would have the effect of prejudicing or interfering with the carrying out of a public work or of otherwise being harmful to public interest 463[or state property] 463 or of impeding the assessment or collection of public revenues,​
(i)​
would not have such effect as aforesaid;or​
(ii)​
would have the effect of suspending an order or proceeding which on the face of the record is without jurisdiction.​
464[​

(4A)​
An interim order made by a High Court on an application made to it to question the validity or legal effect of any order made, proceeding taken or act done by any authority or person, which has been made, taken or done or purports to have been made, taken or done under any law which is specified in Part I of the First Schedule or relates to, or is connected with, State property or assessment or collection of public revenues shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months following the day on which it is made:​
Provided that the matter shall be finally decided by the High Court within six months from the date on which the interim order in made.​
] 464469[​

(4B)​
Every case in which, on an application under clause (1), the High Court has made an interim order shall be disposed of by the High Court on merits within six months from the day on which it is made, unless the High Court is prevented from doing so for sufficient cause to be recorded.​
] 469

(5)​
In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,-​

"person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan;​
and "prescribed law officer" means​

(a)​
in relation to an application affecting the Federal Government or an authority of or under the control of the Federal Government, the Attorney-General, and​
(b)​
in any other case, the Advocate-General for the Province in which the application is made.​
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
199
Jurisdiction of High Court.

(1)​
Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,-​

(a)​
on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order-​

(i)​
directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or​
(ii)​
declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or​
(b)​
on the application of any person, make an order-​

(i)​
directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner; or​
(ii)​
requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office; or​
(c)​
on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person or authority, including any Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II.​
(2)​
Subject to the Constitution, the right to move a High Court for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II shall not be abridged.​
458[​

(3)​
An order shall not be made under clause (1) on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces, in respect of his terms and conditions of service, in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or as a person subject to such law.​
] 458459[] 459

(4)​
Where- the Court shall not make an interim order unless the prescribed law officer has been given notice of the application and he or any person authorised by him in that behalf has had an opportunity of being heard and the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that the interim order-​

(a)​
an application is made to a High Court for an order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of clause (1), and​
(b)​
the making of an interim order would have the effect of prejudicing or interfering with the carrying out of a public work or of otherwise being harmful to public interest 463[or state property] 463 or of impeding the assessment or collection of public revenues,​
(i)​
would not have such effect as aforesaid;or​
(ii)​
would have the effect of suspending an order or proceeding which on the face of the record is without jurisdiction.​
464[​

(4A)​
An interim order made by a High Court on an application made to it to question the validity or legal effect of any order made, proceeding taken or act done by any authority or person, which has been made, taken or done or purports to have been made, taken or done under any law which is specified in Part I of the First Schedule or relates to, or is connected with, State property or assessment or collection of public revenues shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months following the day on which it is made:​
] 464469[​

(4B)​
Every case in which, on an application under clause (1), the High Court has made an interim order shall be disposed of by the High Court on merits within six months from the day on which it is made, unless the High Court is prevented from doing so for sufficient cause to be recorded.​
] 469

(5)​
In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,-​

"person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan;​
and "prescribed law officer" means​

(a)​
in relation to an application affecting the Federal Government or an authority of or under the control of the Federal Government, the Attorney-General, and​
(b)​
in any other case, the Advocate-General for the Province in which the application is made.​

Thanks, but very ambiguous..

"on the application of any aggrieved party directing a person performing make an order within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority,"

This is the only clause which appears which might give it some jurisdiction of federal matters but only to an individual within its "territorial jurisdiction". as I see it, it has no authority over federal ministries, bodies or entities, since they are not in its territorial jurisdiction. For eg it cannot order the Federal Ministry of Interior or go against the order of the Supreme Court.
 

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Thanks, but very ambiguous..

"on the application of any aggrieved party directing a person performing make an order within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority,"

This is the only clause which appears which might give it some jurisdiction of federal matters but only to an individual within its "territorial jurisdiction". as I see it, it has no authority over federal ministries, bodies or entities, since they are not in its territorial jurisdiction. For eg it cannot order the Federal Ministry of Interior or go against the order of the Supreme Court.

شاہد خاقان عباسی لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی حدود والے علاقے سےمنتخب ہوا ہے ، اس علاقے کی نمائیندگی سے اسے محروم رکھا جا رہا تھا ، اس کی شکایت لےکر وہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ گیا تھا ، اس طرح لاہور ہائی کورٹ اپنی حدود کے لوگوں کے حقوق کیلئے مداخلت کرسکتی ہے، اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ بھی حدود کا اعتراض آسکتا تھا یہاں پر نہیں
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
شاہد خاقان عباسی لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی حدود والے علاقے سےمنتخب ہوا ہے ، اس علاقے کی نمائیندگی سے اسے محروم رکھا جا رہا تھا ، اس کی شکایت لےکر وہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ گیا تھا ، اس طرح لاہور ہائی کورٹ اپنی حدود کے لوگوں کے حقوق کیلئے مداخلت کرسکتی ہے، اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ بھی حدود کا اعتراض آسکتا تھا یہاں پر نہیں
Ok this might fall under Lohar court somehow. But how is Lohar High Court ordering Ministry of Interior as in the case of Nawaz's bonds. How did it stop a JIT formed on the orders of the supreme court?
 

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Ok this might fall under Lohar court somehow. But how is Lohar High Court ordering Ministry of Interior as in the case of Nawaz's bonds. How did it stop a JIT formed on the orders of the supreme court?

وہ شخص جس کو منسٹری نے اس کے بنیادی حق یعنی سفر کرنے آزادی سے روکا ہوا تھا وہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی حدود میں رہتا تھا
کسی سپریم کورٹ کے حکم والی جے آئی ٹی کو کام کرنے سے نہیں روکا گیا ، آپ کون سی جے آئی ٹی کی بات کررہے ہیں؟؟
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
وہ شخص جس کو منسٹری نے اس کے بنیادی حق یعنی سفر کرنے آزادی سے روکا ہوا تھا وہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی حدود میں رہتا تھا
کسی سپریم کورٹ کے حکم والی جے آئی ٹی کو کام کرنے سے نہیں روکا گیا ، آپ کون سی جے آئی ٹی کی بات کررہے ہیں؟؟
Asay to jub bhi koi federal minister Punjab mein jaye ga to us ki ministry Lohar Court ki hudood mein aa jaye gi Or if the federal govt or even supreme court takes any action against anyone living in Punjab even then Lohar Court has superiority ? This doesn't make any sense

Oh and this JIT


It was formed under the order of the SC and then suspended by Lohar Court when itgot close to the culprits
 

mhafeez

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Asay to jub bhi koi federal minister Punjab mein jaye ga to us ki ministry Lohar Court ki hudood mein aa jaye gi Or if the federal govt or even supreme court takes any action against anyone living in Punjab even then Lohar Court has superiority ? This doesn't make any sense

Oh and this JIT


It was formed under the order of the SC and then suspended by Lohar Court when itgot close to the culprits

This petition was made by Police Officers who were not respondent in SC under Article 10/A SC was bound to hear these petitioners before passing a verdict against them, so LHC accepted their plea.

Khurram Rafiq and other police officials facing trial in the Model Town case had filed petitions challenging the legitimacy of the new JIT.


Senior lawyers Azam Nazir Tarar and Burhan Moazam Malik represented the petitioners and mainly argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and Anti Terrorism Act 1997 did not allow formation of fresh investigation in a case after submission of challan and framing of charges in particular.

Article continues after ad



They stated that the trial in the Model Town case initiated on a private complaint filed by Idara Minhajul Quran/Pakistan Awami Tehreek was near conclusion as 86 out of 135 witnesses had been testified before the trial court. They said a judicial inquiry and a JIT had already investigated the firing incident.


Questioning the formation of the new JIT, the lawyers had taken a plea that the Supreme Court in its decision had not ordered constitution of the new JIT but the Punjab government itself told the court that it decided to hold a fresh investigation in the case. Later, the government on Jan 3, 2019 formed the impugned JIT in clear violation of settled laws, said the lawyers.


During the hearing, an assistant advocate general remained present in court but he did not come up with arguments saying he was yet to receive instructions from the government side.


The bench reserved the verdict on maintainability of the petitions before Friday prayer and announced it around 6:20pm when Advocate General of Punjab (AGP) Ahmad Awais along with other law officers was present in the courtroom to complain about being unheard in the case.


Mr Awais claimed that the office of the advocate general had no formal information from court about Friday’s proceedings. He said it was very unprecedented that a decision was being announced without hearing the view of the government.


The bench snubbed the principal law officer asking him to lower his tone when ‘arguments’ of the latter turned a little loud. “I am trying to make myself heard by the bench,” retorted Mr Awais.


‘Don’t try to pressurise the court,” Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan reminded the AGP and told him that a law officer remained present in court during the whole proceedings.


Justice Qasim Khan asked the AGP to adopt due legal course if he had any reservation on the decision.


The bench with the majority view declared the petitions maintainable, suspended the notification of the impugned JIT and issued a notice to the government. Next date of hearing will be fixed by the office.


LHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan had constituted the three-judge full bench to hear the matter after the lawyers of the petitioners during a Jan 31 hearing argued before a division bench that a larger bench should decide the questions involved in the case.


The new JIT headed by inspector general of national highways & motorways police A.D Khwaja recently interrogated former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in Kot Lakhpat jail and recorded his statement about his alleged role in the Model Town incident.


Leader of Opposition in National Assembly Shahbaz Sharif, former law minister Rana Sanaullah Khan and other ex-ministers of the PML-N had also appeared before the JIT to record their statements.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
This petition was made by Police Officers who were not respondent in SC under Article 10/A SC was bound to hear these petitioners before passing a verdict against them, so LHC accepted their plea.

Khurram Rafiq and other police officials facing trial in the Model Town case had filed petitions challenging the legitimacy of the new JIT.


Senior lawyers Azam Nazir Tarar and Burhan Moazam Malik represented the petitioners and mainly argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and Anti Terrorism Act 1997 did not allow formation of fresh investigation in a case after submission of challan and framing of charges in particular.

Article continues after ad



They stated that the trial in the Model Town case initiated on a private complaint filed by Idara Minhajul Quran/Pakistan Awami Tehreek was near conclusion as 86 out of 135 witnesses had been testified before the trial court. They said a judicial inquiry and a JIT had already investigated the firing incident.


Questioning the formation of the new JIT, the lawyers had taken a plea that the Supreme Court in its decision had not ordered constitution of the new JIT but the Punjab government itself told the court that it decided to hold a fresh investigation in the case. Later, the government on Jan 3, 2019 formed the impugned JIT in clear violation of settled laws, said the lawyers.


During the hearing, an assistant advocate general remained present in court but he did not come up with arguments saying he was yet to receive instructions from the government side.


The bench reserved the verdict on maintainability of the petitions before Friday prayer and announced it around 6:20pm when Advocate General of Punjab (AGP) Ahmad Awais along with other law officers was present in the courtroom to complain about being unheard in the case.


Mr Awais claimed that the office of the advocate general had no formal information from court about Friday’s proceedings. He said it was very unprecedented that a decision was being announced without hearing the view of the government.


The bench snubbed the principal law officer asking him to lower his tone when ‘arguments’ of the latter turned a little loud. “I am trying to make myself heard by the bench,” retorted Mr Awais.


‘Don’t try to pressurise the court,” Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan reminded the AGP and told him that a law officer remained present in court during the whole proceedings.


Justice Qasim Khan asked the AGP to adopt due legal course if he had any reservation on the decision.


The bench with the majority view declared the petitions maintainable, suspended the notification of the impugned JIT and issued a notice to the government. Next date of hearing will be fixed by the office.


LHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan had constituted the three-judge full bench to hear the matter after the lawyers of the petitioners during a Jan 31 hearing argued before a division bench that a larger bench should decide the questions involved in the case.


The new JIT headed by inspector general of national highways & motorways police A.D Khwaja recently interrogated former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in Kot Lakhpat jail and recorded his statement about his alleged role in the Model Town incident.


Leader of Opposition in National Assembly Shahbaz Sharif, former law minister Rana Sanaullah Khan and other ex-ministers of the PML-N had also appeared before the JIT to record their statements.
Great cut n paste job but Yeah we all know that, still has no jurisdiction to rule on a JIT formed by the order of the Supreme court , not to mention how the Lohar Court illegally gave verdict on the petition without hearing the AGP arguments. Malik Shazad and Sardar Shamim well known Noora Tawaifs