ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday dismissed a petition filed by former Senator Syed Zafar Ali Shah challenging return of PTI’s members to the National Assembly despite tendering resignations, and termed it a political question rather than a judicial one.
The two-member IHC bench comprising Justice Athar Minnallah and Justice Aamir Farooq in its 37-page detailed judgment maintained that it was the National Assembly Speaker not the court to decide the matter of resignations of PTI members, which as per petitioner, were voluntary and genuine.
“This is clearly hit by the doctrine of political question,”the court observed.
The verdict said: “Neither can this court usurp the powers vested in the Speaker by the Constitution nor make him go through the rigours of deducing evidence in the court, inevitably expressing our lack of respect for the office of the Speaker and the representative forum of the people of Pakistan i.e the NA.
“It is time to learn from the past and move forward by ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and by respecting the domain of each organ of the state.”
The court said the commitment to the Constitution and a strict and solemn respect for the separation of powers between the three organs the legislature, the judiciary and the executive was the only path which would lead the nation to a bright, strong and prosperous future.
“This court expects that at this juncture of our history the political forces would settle their grievances in the political forums rather than taking the precious time of the bonafide litigants awaiting justice to be dispensed expeditiously.
“We also expect that the political forces will strive to create harmony and refrain from undermining the prestige of the Parliament, a symbol of unity of the Federation and the peoples’ will.
“Parliament deserves utmost respect because the 342 members occupy the seats on behalf of the people of Pakistan.
“We have been informed that PTI is the third largest party in the NA and almost 70 million eligible citizens had voted and sent respondents to fill the seats on their behalf.
It would be unjust and unfair if the mandate of these 70 million is brushed aside in such casual manner as has been argued by the petitioner.”