The Supreme Court issued on Wednesday notices to the attorney general of Pakistan and all provincial advocate generals over a plea filed by the federal government against the exercise of suo motu powers by the Sindh High Court (SHC) in appointment of the chairman of drug court in Karachi.
A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, took up the federal government’s appeal against the SHC’s April 15 verdict regarding the suspension of a notification on the appointment of the chairman drug court.
The federal government contended that the initiation of suo motu proceedings by the SHC in the matter was an entirely improper exercise of judicial powers.
Further, the government, through the law minister, moved a petition in the top court, seeking suspension of the SHC order, wherein the high court converted the note of its registrar into a constitutional petition and suspended the notification regarding the appointment of the drug court chairman.
Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mahmood appeared on behalf of the federal government before the bench. The court will announce its ruling over the consultation process with the SHC chief justice regarding the appointment of drug court chairman.
Earlier, the Law Ministry had requested the SHC to forward a panel of candidates for appointment of drug court chairman, following which the court sent in three nominations for the post on April 6.
On April 8, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif approved the appointment of Khalid Mumtaz as chairman, who was the second option in the list of names.
However, the SHC registrar on April 14 put up a note before the chief justice, stating that Sofia Latif, a retired district and sessions judge, was nominated for the post of chairperson drug court, but the law ministry notified Mumtaz for the position.
After the request was filed, the SHC chief justice directed the note be converted into a constitutional petition and fixed it before the high court’s division bench-II. On the following day, the division bench of the high court suspended the notification.The law ministry, in its petition, contended that the high court does not have any jurisdiction to issue a writ exercising suo motu powers while there was neither any warrant nor anyone who challenged the appointment of Mumtaz.
“The high court in such cases should have to confine only to relief claimed and has no jurisdiction in suo motu jurisdiction to suspend the appointment notification, therefore, instant proceedings are liable to be set aside/quashed being void and without jurisdiction,” contents of the law ministry’s plea read.
Furthermore, the petition said the SHC violated Article 10A of the Constitution, which was newly incorporated through the 18th Constitutional Amendment.
The petition went on to say that the right of hearing was not given to the law ministry or Mumtaz.
“Therefore, inviolable constitutional right was not given to the petitioner and responded no 2 the impugned order is illegal, violation of the Constitution and is not sustainable under the law,” it added.
The ministry maintains the petition has been filed only to have an authoritative pronouncement on its legal aspect.
