Contempt notice to KP speaker: Constitution is being seemingly trampled, says Rabbani

ISLAMABAD: The Senate Chairman, Mian Raza Rabbani, on Tuesday said the issuance of a contempt notice by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) to the KP Assembly Speaker conveyed an impression that attempts are being made to trample the Constitution. Rabbani said he wanted to quit without causing any further rancour among the institutions and departments.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgments, he said restraint must be exhibited by the other high courts, courts and judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals functioning under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force, as the judiciary and the parliament are not at cross-purposes but their aim is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. “It is unfortunate that a contempt notice is issued to the speaker of an assembly,” he said.

He was referring to a recent hearing in the Peshawar High Court (PHC) in which Justice Ikramullah Khan and Justice Mohammad Ayub Khan issued a notice to the KP Assembly Speaker Asad Qaisar, asking him to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him. The notice was issued over a petition filed by imprisoned MPA-elect Baldev Kumar, who claimed that despite the court orders, he was not allowed to take the oath of his office.

Making a statement in the House with less than a week left in his retirement, Rabbani drew the attention of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, in a spirit of understanding, that in a detailed judgment in the matter of Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta vs the Federation of Pakistan he had shown constraint in not going beyond the veil of 'internal proceedings' of parliament in terms of Article 69 of the Constitution of 1973.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here: “It appears that the Bill was voted in the Senate of Pakistan on 22.09.2017. We have been informed that various amendments to the said bill were proposed by some political parties, including the retention of the afore-noted proviso to Section 5 of the Order, 2002. It may also be noted that except for the proviso, Section 5 of the Order, 2002 was retained in its original form in the proposed Bill. However, it appears that most of the amendments suggested by various parties were not incorporated.

The petitioners have vehemently argued that proceedings before the Senate of Pakistan were fundamentally questionable and flawed. However, we do not wish to enter into this controversy in due deference to the provisions of Article 69 of the Constitution especially so where no specific grounds have been urged that may justify probe and scrutiny of the process by which the Bill was passed in the Senate of Pakistan. We have gone through the record of debates on the Bill and find that no purposeful debates on the Bill took place in the Senate of Pakistan. Nevertheless, we would not like to delve deeper in the said aspect of the issue.”

The Chairman went on to add: “similarly, the information sought by the Islamabad High Court also infringes upon the well-established concept of ‘internal proceedings’ of the Parliament. I would have met the Chief Justice of Pakistan to iron out these intra-institutional and intra-jurisdictional issues but unfortunately the constraint of time does not permit me,” he noted.

Nevertheless, he continued, the Office of the Chairman Senate is an office in perpetuity and that office would like an amicable settlement of these jurisdictional issues in the light of institutional respect and the mandate laid down for each organ of the State under the concept of trichotomy of powers in the Constitution, 1973.

Rabbani remarked: “I am confident that my successor will carry this torch even if it means calling on the Chief Justice of Pakistan again”. His statement was appreciated by senators on both sides of the aisle by thumping of desks.