Supreme Court orders in NRO case unlawful: Government
ISLAMABAD: The government on Wednesday filed two review petitions, including one against the July 12 order of the Supreme Court on the NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance) implementation and the other against the striking down of the Contempt of Court Act 2012.
In the review petition filed through Attorney General Irfan Qadir in the NRO implementation case, the federation contended that the prime minister was not bound to write a letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening cases against Asif Ali Zardari.
On July 12, the court had ordered Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to abide by its order and implement the para 178 of NRO judgment on writing a letter to the Swiss authorities.
The review petition, however, contended that the prime minister had not received any advice to write the letter; hence he was not bound to write the letter. The federation submitted that the June 27 and July 12 court orders in the case were unlawful and if the letter were written, it would violate the Article 248 of the Constitution.
The top court of the country had on July 12 ordered Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to submit a compliance report by July 25 but the PM could not submit it and consequently the apex court set August 8 deadline for the PM to implement its order by writing the letter to Swiss authorities to reopen the graft cases against President Zardari.
On Wednesday, the court summoned Raja Pervaiz Ashraf on August 27 after issuing a show-cause notice to him for contempt of court by not complying with its order of writing the letter to Swiss authorities.
Similarly, the federation also filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the judgment striking down the Contempt of Court Act 2012.A decision to file the review petition was made after President Zardari met with the coalition partners and Law Minister Farooq H Naek last Sunday.
On August 3, the Supreme Court declared the Contempt of Court Act 2012 unconstitutional, null and void. The court held that Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act 2012 as a whole was void and contrary to Articles 4, 9, 25 and 204(2) of the Constitution.
The court further held that the powers of the courts had been reduced by incorporating the expression of scandalising a judge in relation to his office whereas in Article 204(2) the word court had been used.
Filed through its counsel Abdul Shakoor Paracha, the federation in its review petition contended that the Supreme Court could not have proceeded to decide the constitutional petitions on merits without disposing of the objections of the federation regarding maintainability under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
The federation further contended that the petitions were not maintainable, as the same were not based upon any grievance or injury suffered by the petitioners, who were not deprived of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Constitution.
It prayed that the short order of August 3 of the apex court be reviewed and accordingly the constitutional petitions be dismissed.
” 
” 
” 
” 
