20000120

APP adds: The Supreme Court expunged para 6 of the petition filed by Shahid Orakzai.

The court asked the petitioner whether he wanted to defend para 6 or wanted to withdraw it.

Shahid said that he might withdraw the para at any time but if the court felt it not necessary it could expunge it.

The Chief Justice announced that para 6 of the petition stood expunged.

The bench comprised Chief Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Mohammad Bashir Jahangiri, Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, Justice Ijaz Nisar, Justice Mamoon Kazi, Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, Justice Chaudhry Mohammad Arif, Justice Muneer A. Sheikh, Justice Wajeeh-ud-Din Ahmed and Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam. Shahid Orakzai placed before the court 12 questions on which he would be addressing the court.

He also read out his application filed before the three-member bench that heard and decided the rowdyism case in May 1999.

In this application he had asked the court to take note of the leading role of Saif-ur-Rehman on November 28, 1997, when the SC building was stormed by miscreants.

He said that Saif-ur-Rehman was the most powerful person on earth on the day of SC storming. He (Saif) asked the police not to stop the miscreants who entered the premises of the SC building after he reached there on the direction of then chief minister of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif.

He said the name of Saif-ur-Rehman was intriguingly deleted from the list of accused persons in the court storming case though he had the major role to play. Arguing with regard to the vastness of the powers of the Supreme Court, Orakzai contended that SC rules are subject to law and not under the law.

He said that the power and credibility of the court lies in implementation of its orders, judgements and sentences. "Denying the implementation of court orders is the severe contempt and if this matter is not given priority the dignity of the court would vanish."

Talking about the amendment made by Nawaz Sharif in the Contempt Act providing right of appeal to the contemner, he said that the law was amended to save one particular person. He said that the law should be for more than one person, at least. If it is enacted for one person it would not be a law but a privileged legislatures giving to a person.

He was on his feet when the court adjourned the proceedings for Thursday, January 20, 2000.