The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has adjourned the hearing of the petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) that challenged the eight presidential ordinances passed by the federal government.
During the hearing, Babar Awan submitted a written reply to the IHC. The court ordered Babar Awan to continue arguments in the next hearing.
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) central leader, Senator Raza Rabbani, appeared before the court and sought more time for the preparation of recommendations.
It is pertinent to mention here that Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Athar Minallah appointed Makhdoom Ali Khan, Babar Awan, Raza Rabbani, Abid Hassan Manto and others to assist the court in the case.
Additional Attorney General Tariq Khokhar also attended the hearing; however, the attorney general did not appear in the hearing despite the high court summoned him for its assistance.
The petitioner questioned the scope of Article 89 in the presidential ordinances. Later, the court accepted the plea of Raza Rabbani and adjourned the hearing till February 18.
In the previous hearing held on January 3, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had directed secretary law to submit a reply within 15 days in the case related to eight presidential ordinances passed by the federal government.
The hearing was resumed by the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Athar Minallah, in the petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) Member of National Assembly (MNA) Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha that challenged the promulgation of eight presidential ordinances.
Barrister Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha said the high court had sought reply from the federal government in 14 days but it has not been submitted after spending 1.5 months. He added new ordinances are being issued despite the case is under proceeding in the court which violates the Constitution. The lawyer said the Constitution allows to promulgate ordinances only in emergency circumstances.
The petitioner had prayed the court to order the government to restore the respect of the Parliament and bar it from issuing the ordinances. “The obvious reason why the federal government rushed with these ordinances is because it did not want to meaningfully engage with the opposition in the Parliament,” the counsel of petitioner stated. The petition requested the court to declare that the president’s power to promulgate ordinances can be used to bring about such legislation only when the government needs to respond to an emergency situation such as war, famine, epidemic or rebellion which has put the life, liberty or property of the people of Pakistan at stake. It further pleaded that such powers can be used in case of an emergency after the prorogation of the last session of Parliament or when waiting for the commencement of the next session of either house of Parliament would cause irreparable loss of life, liberty or property to the people of Pakistan.
