The Supreme Court (SC) has requested that all parties involved in the Faizabad sit-in provide information by October 27, 2023, as it will start proceedings on eight review petitions filed against the February 2019 judgement on November 1.
Read more with EL news: ECP finds it difficult to return CDA members
In a September 28 order, the court requested affidavits from all parties, civil, private, and governmental, to reveal relevant facts.
The court noted that “adjournments have been sought” and “certain parties are not in attendance” while “some have publicly stated that they knew what had happened, yet the judgement did not consider their point of view”.
“This is odd as paragraph 17 of the judgement stated that all sessions in this matter were in open court. We allowed aggrieved and affected parties to come forward and provide documents and written submissions “The Supreme Court wrote in its ruling.
We are giving everyone another chance to file affidavits if they want to divulge information about this incident. The knowledgeable AG [Attorney General of Pakistan] indicates that the matter concerns events of a limited period and should not be expanded “written order.
Enforcing Faizabad sit-in verdict could have prevented Jaranwala: CJP
Last week, a three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and including Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah was informed that the Ministry of Defence, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) wanted to withdraw their pleas.
The Intelligence Bureau (IB), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), and ‘detained’ Awami Muslim League leader Sheikh Rashid had previously requested adjournments for various reasons their counsels could not appear.
In its written order, the top court repeated the prior hearing’s questions:
- Why the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed the issue in four years
- The simultaneous filing of these review petitions and why
- Whether constitutional and statutory bodies filed the same separately
- Has the February 2019 judgement been implemented, as some claim?