h1

P L D 1992 KARACHI 430

ASIF ALI ZARDARI

V/S

SPECIAL JUDGE (SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES) II
KARACHI & OTHER


Per Syed Abdur Rehman, J.(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 65-

He contended that this Article impliedly gives a privilege to a member of the Assembly to sit and vote after he had taken an oath. The contention of Mr. Kamal Azfar is not at all acceptable. Bare perusal of this Article shows that a member cannot sit in the House until and unless he takes on oath. The contention of Mr. Kamal Azfar is not at all acceptable. Bare perusal of this Article only creates a disability. It does not give any right or privilege to a Member of the National Assembly to sit after taking oath in the House even when he is in judicial custody. Mr. Kamal Azfar then referred us to PLD 1964 SC 503 (Lt. Col. G.L. Battacharya v. The State and others).
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 66-

A perusal of the Article and particularly sub-Article (2) would make it absolutely clear that a Member of National Assembly does not enjoy any privilege which entitles him to attend the session of the National Assembly, while he is in custody as an under-trial prisoner. Privileges which are conferred on a Member are those specifically mentioned in sub-Article (1) of Article 66 of the Constitution i.e. freedom of vote, freedom of speech, immunity from proceedings in any Court in respect of any report or any vote given by him in the Assembly or in respect of publication by or under the authority of the Assembly of any report paper votes etc. Sub-Article (2) of Article 66 provides that in other respects, the powers, immunities and privileges of the Members of the National Assembly, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by law and tll so defined, shall be such as were enjoyed by members of the previous National Assembly. [p. 435] B
We are, therefore, of the clear view that neither Article 66 of the Constitution, nor any other Article thereof confers privilege upon the Members of the National Assembly as is being claimed by the petitioner. We are also of the clear view that no law passed under sub-Article (2) of Article 66 of the Constitution, nor any other convention or usage having the force of law, confers a privilege upon a Member of National Assembly, requiring that he should be compulsorily allowed or taken to attend the Session of the National Assembly even when he is an under-trial prisoner. [p. 436] C

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 66 & 199-

Accordingly the petitioner approached the concerned trial Court. In two of the cases the petitioner was permitted to attend the current session by Special Judge Mr. Justice (Rtd). Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, while in the third case Special Judge Mr. Kazi Muhammad Akbar rejected the application. Hence another interlocutory application was made for the same purpose. The said application was disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the fact that we heard and disposed of the main petition as shown above. We would, however, before parting with this case, like to clarify that the dismissal of this petition does not mean that the Provincial Government is prohibited by any law from making arrangements for the petitioner, who is in custody as an under-trial prisoner, to attend the Session of the National Assembly, if it proposes to do so. [p. 436 & 437] D

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: