Eid announcement: PHC asks KP govt authorities to submit replies

PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday directed the chief minister, governor and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa information minister to submit replies in a writ petition seeking a court order to declare the provincial government’s announcement of Eidul Fitr on the 28th Ramazan an utter violation of the state religion and glory of Islam.

The bench directed the advocate general, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to submit a reply on behalf of the provincial government and assist the court on the legal point whether, under Article 248 of Constitution, the provincial minister had violated his oath or not by announcing Eidul Fitr by interfering in the affairs of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. During the hearing, Advocate General Abdul Latif Yousafzai submitted that the petition is non-maintainable as the petitioner directly named the governor, chief minister and minister in the petition and provincial government through advocate general.

He submitted that Under Article 174 read with Article 249 of the Constitution, he can only mention the provincial government through the chief secretary.

After hearing the objection, the court directed the respondents to submit reply and fixed the case on September 4 for final arguments.

Earlier, the petitioner Shahid Orkazai argued his case and submitted that the provincial government announcement of Eidul Fitr on 28 Ramazan was an utter violation of the state religion and glory of Islam.

About the facts of the case, he stated that the respondent Minister Shaukat Yousafzai on June 3 officially announced the termination of the fasting month of Ramazan and start of Eidul Fitr.

It was submitted that the minister literally converted Ramazan into the month of February without ever realising the complications and impact on the federal structure of the state.

He also submitted that the provincial minister, by announcing the end of Ramazan and commencement of Eidul Fitr, violated his oath. The petitioner cited Article 248 of Constitution and submitted that the minister had no power under the oath to interfere in the affairs of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.