ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed by Chief executive Officer (CEO) of a housing society seeking action against former Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt General Faiz Hameed over alleged land grabbing and stealing valuables.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Athar Minallah disposed of the petition and asked the petitioner to approach the relevant forum.
Petitioner Moeez Ahmed khan, CEO of the housing society had filed a petition with the human rights cell (HRC) of the Supreme Court during the tenure of former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, seeking action against retired army officers including former ISI DG Lt Gen (R) Faiz Hameed over alleged land grabbing and stealing valuables.
He submitted that on May 12, 2017 that his house and office were raided on the orders of General (R) Faiz Hameed. He had alleged that during the raid, valuables and records of the private housing society were stolen. He had further alleged that the purpose of illegal proceedings against him was to take control of the housing society located at Srinagar Highway in Islamabad.
He had submitted that after the raid, he along with his five other colleagues were kept in confinement. The petitioner had prayed that the federal government should take action against Gen (R) Faiz Hameed, his brother Najaf and others.
During the course of hearing, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner counsel if the petitioner had levelled serious allegations in his plea.
The counsel, however, replied that Lt Gen (R) Hameed abducted his client along with five others and kept them in confinement.
At this, the chief justice asked the counsel as to what the court should do. The counsel requested the court to order the Ministry of Defence to take action.
The Chief Justice, however, inquired as to whether this type of case has ever been heard in the Supreme Court. The counsel replied that this was the first time their plea was scheduled for a hearing.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice said that Pakistani expat Zahida Javed Aslam who had filed a petition in SC’s HRC, alleging that Khan — who is the owner of the housing society transferred her properties in his name fraudulently.
The court noted that Zahida Javed Aslam had filed the case in 2017 under Article 184/3 in the human rights cell, adding that her case was heard by former CJP Saqib Nisar in the chamber.
Justice Athar Minallah recalled when he was Chief Justice Islamabad High Court, he had declared the human rights cell “illegal”, adding that it is not established under any law.
The judge observed that any chief justice cannot take matters outside the legal jurisdiction. Justice Minallah questioned as to how the hearing took place when the matter did not come under judicial jurisdiction” asked Justice Minallah.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa observed that both the petitions come under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution adding that the proceedings of the Supreme Court cannot take place in the chamber.
“Only chamber appeals can be held in the chamber,” the CJP remarked adding that there are three opinions on invoking jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution one - that the Chief Justice of Pakistan will invoke this jurisdiction, two - that the bench will initiate proceedings and thirdly that a full court should be convened to take up such matters.
The Chief Justice noted that there is no opinion in the top court that suggests that the Chief Justice of Pakistan can pass such directions in his chamber.
At the outset of hearing, the Director of the Human Rights Cell referred to an order issued by a full court on December 12, 2019, wherein the need to frame rules to streamline the Human Rights Cell was identified.
However, he informed the court that no meeting on the subject was held until September 18 of this year.
It means that whatsoever done so far in the Human Rights Cell was illegal.
When the court sought opinion of Farooq H Naek present in the courtroom, he submitted that the Supreme Court Order V, rule 2 talks about chamber proceedings however, he submitted that it does not apply on cases taken up under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
He further submitted that Order 25 relates to fundamental rights cases but it clearly states that no Chief Justice could take action on his own behalf but at least a two-member bench could hear the matter.
Similarly, Salman Aslam Butt, senior lawyer told the court that the Rules cannot allow Chief Justice of Pakistan to proceed in chamber.
Meanwhile, Additional Attorney General submitted before the court that the petitioner can approach the Ministry of Defence.
Later, the court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the relevant forum.
The court held that the jurisdiction exercised under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is quite different from other normal case hence the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution should be invoked with care.
The court held that to redress the case in hand, a relevant forum is available hence the petitioner should first approach the relevant forum.
