Ijaz Kakakhel Islamabad
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday issued a written order in response to a plea filed by the owner of Topcity Housing Society against the former director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt-Gen (retd) FaizHameed.
The three-member bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice QaziFaez Isa, and comprising Justice AtharMinallah, and Justice Aminuddin Khan, had disposed of the constitutional petition last week. The petitioner had alleged abduction by retired army officers, including Gen Faiz.
The bench had noted that the petitioner could seek remedy from the proper forum, as mentioned by the Additional Attorney General of Pakistan.
In the written order, released on Tuesday, the court cited the gravity of the allegations made by the petitioner against military officers including Gen Faiz and their potential impact on the reputation of key institutions.
The court acknowledged that if proven true, these allegations could significantly undermine the reputation of the federal government, the armed forces, ISI, and Pakistan Rangers. Therefore, the court asserted that such serious accusations cannot be left unattended.
However, the order also pointed out the unique nature of cases filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. CJP Isa underscored that the Supreme Court exercises original power under this article and must do so cautiously. The order stated that other forums, including appeals to the High Court under Article 185, exist for similar matters. Direct intervention by the Supreme Court could adversely affect the rights of others.
Chief Justice Isa, in the written order, addressed the concerns raised by the applicant regarding the Ministry of Defence’s potential reluctance to entertain the complaint against retired army officers. The order revealed that the learned Additional Attorney General assured the court that the complaint would be given due consideration by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. The court expressed confidence in this assurance and deemed the applicant’s apprehension as misplaced.
