SHC assured: Sindh govt not to violate any law for removing IGP
KARACHI: The Sindh government will not take any action for removing the IG Sindh in violation of Article 12 (2) of the Sindh (repeal of the Police Act 1861 and Revival of Police Order 2002) (Amendment) Act 2019, the Advocate General Sindh assured the Sindh High Court on Tuesday.
The undertaking came on a petition filed by the civil rights activists seeking enforcement of the newly introduced police law that guarantees three years tenure and posting of the IGP Sindh and sought an injunction against the removal of IGP Sindh in violation of the law.
The court had on a previous hearing restrained the Sindh government from surrendering the services of IGP Sindh Kaleem Imam without consultations with the federal government in terms of Article 12 of the Sindh Police Act. Petitioner's counsel Faisal Siddiqui submitted that Sindh cabinet had decided to surrender services of the IG Sindh Kaleem Imam on January 15 without any consultations with the federal government.
He submitted that Article 12 (2) of the Sindh Police Act clearly guarantees a three-year tenure for the IG which in case of the incumbent ends in September 2021. He said the officer can only be removed or recalled before the completion of the term if the provincial government takes the decision following 'substantive consultation' with the federal government.
He submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that any substantial consultation has taken place as provincial government’s letter makes no reference to any such consultation. He argued that the federal government through its letter on January 17 had clearly stated that the federal government has only received the request of the provincial government which is yet to be decided, which also proves that substantive consultation is yet to be taken.
He submitted that the federal government’s letter also communicated that incumbent IG Sindh shall continue to discharge his duties till the competent authority considers Sindh government's request and any unilateral repatriation of IG and look after charge of the post cannot be assigned to any additional IG by the government of Sindh.
The federal government, he submitted had also communicated that any look after charge of the IGP post, can only be made by the competent authority.
The petitioner submitted that Sindh cabinet decision of recalling the IG Sindh was illegal and violative of Article 12 (2) of the Police Act 2019 and the letter is liable to be set aside.
The Advocate General Sindh, Salman Talibuddin, stated before the court that no action shall be taken for removing the Inspector General of Police Sindh in violation of Article 12(2) Sindh police Act 2019.
The Sindh High Court’s division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar disposed of the stay application with the direction that no violation of Article 12 (2) of the Sindh police Act 2019 will be committed by the provincial and federal government.
-
AI Revolution In Medicine: Can Technology Cure The Incurable? -
Queen Camilla Makes Real Estate Move As Charles Risks Having Trust Documents, Duchy Accounts Exposed -
Sheryl Underwood Reveals Where She And Sharon Osbourne Stand After Years-long Feud -
Neil Young Teases New Music Amid ‘sad And Depressing Times’ -
Alex Warren Questions ‘horrifying’ Grammy Mishap: ‘I Don’t Know What Happened’ -
Can AI Really Understand Scientific Papers? New Study Raises Doubts -
Benny Blanco Reveals The ‘same Thing’ He And Ed Sheeran ‘share’ -
Were Humans Born On Mars? Scientists Raise A Stunning Possibility -
Buckingham Palace Members Step Up For Beatrice, Eugenie After William, Kate’s Rumored Seperation -
Bon Jovi Film Confirmed For Production -
South Korea Hints At Expanding AI Ties With UAE Following The Middle East Conflict -
Epic Raises Fortnite V-Bucks Prices For The First Time Since Launch -
AI Chatbots Help Teens Plan Violent Attacks, Study Warns -
Meta Faces Backlash Over Fake AI Videos -
Anduril Acquires ExoAnalytic Solutions To Bolster ‘Golden Drone’ Missile Defense Capabilities -
Katy Perry Faces Defeat In Long-running Trademark Legal Battle