The Supreme Court ordered on Tuesday that the appeal of former prime minister Imran Khan be scheduled for hearing on Wednesday after accepting an appeal over registrar office concerns (today).
The PTI leader’s appeal against the registrar’s office’s denial of consideration of his constitutional case contesting recent changes to the nation’s accountability statute will be heard in chambers by Supreme Court Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
Imran, through his attorney Khawaja Haris, had filed an appeal in the chamber against the registrar’s office’s objections, arguing that it was not the registrar’s responsibility to determine whether the “ingredients” for invoking this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction were “satisfied” or not based on the pleadings made and justifications urged in the constitution petition.
The PTI’s petition had previously been met with five objections from the apex court’s registrar’s office, which stated that the petitioner had not made clear what matters of public importance were involved in the enforcement of the Constitution’s fundamental rights in order to specifically invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 184. (3).
The top court registrar’s office protested that the petitioner had not utilised the proper legal channels and had not done so while simultaneously demanding an explanation. It was further noted that Rule 6 of Order XXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which calls for a certificate from the advocate-on-record (AOR) had not been followed.
Modifications to the ordinance, according to the former prime minister Imran, would allow public officials to get away with white-collar crimes. Through Khawaja Haris, the attorney representing PML-N supremo and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Panamagate case, the constitutional appeal was submitted in accordance with Article 184(3).
The appeal further argued that the fact that all of the grounds pleaded and legal issues raised in the appellant’s constitution petition are inextricably linked to protecting the nation’s and its citizens’ economic lives, which, as this court has repeatedly held, is a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed, further demonstrates the satisfaction of the “ingredients for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.”
It further noted that, in accordance with the express language used in Article 184(3), this court, and not the registrar, is to consider and decide whether such a matter is present and deserves adjudication by this court.
The appeal asked the SC to overturn the registrar’s decision and to mandate that the constitution petition be given a number and scheduled for hearing before a bench.
