Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Returning of petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) over the Panama leaks by the Supreme Court (SC) Registrar Office has opened the floodgate of questions on the SC registrar for ‘overstepping’ his authority.

However, rules are very clear, acknowledging the powers of the registrar to return any petition filed under Article 184(3), the original jurisdiction of the top court, on the grounds that it does not fall into the ambit of the Supreme Court.

Panama leaks, which also enlists the names of Pakistani politicians, including premier Nawaz Sharif’s family members, has become a matter of public importance, as it involves the questions of money trails, sources of remittances, alleged tax evasion and corruption of billions of dollars.

However, two petitions of the PTI and the JI, seeking probe into the Panamagate, have been returned by the SC Registrar Office, an administrative office, with objections that the matter is of no public importance and the forum is inappropriate; therefore, the petitions are frivolous and non-maintainable under the Supreme Court Rules 1980.

“Jurisprudence behind exercising judicial powers – in terms of a decision regarding a matter of public importance – by an administrative office is filter-check, and the SC rules have given such powers to the registrar for examining if the case is filed genuinely or not,” an official of the SC Registrar Office told Daily Times on a question regarding an administrative post exercising such judicial powers.

The official further said that under the rules, a litigant is supposed to approach the high court through a writ, which is the proper forum. He said that the jurisdiction of Article 184(3) was limited to an extent, if a matter comes wherein state institutions are directly involved, while individuals cannot file a case in the name of public importance.

He further said that now the scope of Article 184(3) had been expanded by exploiting the term ‘public importance’.

However, Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 also provides the litigant an opportunity to challenge the Registrar Office’s order before the judge. It states that an appeal shall lie from the registrar in all cases to the judge in chambers.

The counsel for JI, Asad Manzoor Butt, who has also challenged the Registrar Office’s objections, believes that the objection raised by the registrar that the petition “prima facie appears to be a frivolous petition” is of no legal importance, because “nothing has been stated as to why the petition filed by the appellant (JI) is frivolous”.

“Unless and until the reasons are given for treating the constitution petition – filed by the appellant in support of the order – the same is of no legal importance, and for this reason this objection needs to be ignored and declared illegal and without jurisdiction,” he said.

He, in his appeal, also prayed before the court to set aside the order of the Registrar Office with directions to entertain the petition. However, Pakistan Bar Counsel (PBC) Executive Committee member Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen believes that deciding the maintainability of a petition or deciding whether the matter is of public importance or not is prerogative of the registrar under “Quasi-Judicial” powers. But he also believes that there is a dire need to make amendments to the said rules.