The Lahore High Court issued a ruling that the demand for a presidential system of government in Pakistan is against the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judge Jawad Hassan, while rejecting a written petition asking the cabinet for directions division decide a question that calls for a referendum for presidential system in the country noted that “the act of mandamus can only be released under Article 199 of the Constitution, a person to do what he is required by law to do “
According to details, a citizen, Hafeezur Rehman Chaudhry, had filed a petition through lawyer Ahmad Pansota with more prayers, including a direction to the toilet division to report the matter to parliament for consideration, discussion and evaluation of the current system and call a referendum to ascertain the will of people.
The judge asked the counsel to satisfy the court on maintainability of the petition, such as the plea left against the basic structure of the Constitution and jurisprudence developed by the higher courts of Pakistan.
Attorney Pansota explained that the reason for submitting the petition was just that various applications of the petitioner addressed to the toilet division it had not been considered and decided so far. He said the petitioner he sought indulgence of the court by filing the document of mandamus to direct respondents to do what is required by law to do, in particularly according to federal regulations of Business 1973.
However, Judge Hassan in his verdict noted that the plea for a referendum is held against the basic structure of the Constitution in matter of democracy.
He further explained that the LHC has already issued a detailed judgment discussing the preamble of the Constitution on democracy in a case from 2021 of “Jamshed Iqbal Cheema v. The Election Appellate Tribunal and others”, which clearly states that the principles of democracy must be fully respected.
The judge noted that these appeals have been brought before the court in this legal system I will try to change the structure of the Constitution, the field of application of which was developed by the Supreme Court in ‘Association of District Lawyers, Rawalpindi and others against the Federation of Pakistan and others’.
Justice Hassan also referred to a Supreme Court of Judgment of India in the famous case of ‘Kesavananda v State of Kerala (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1461) ‘ in which it held that the basic structure e framework of the constitution cannot be changed as it was made by the chosen representatives of Village.
The petitioner’S counsel told the court that he would not press the question if the petitioner the hearing was granted by some of the competent authorities of the closet division because under the federal rules the cabinet can decide any matter if so provided therein.
However, the judge said so in this case, nor a real one party had been appointed to which a direction could be issued, nor was the relevant law cited in under which such provisions can be issued, and dismissed the appeal in how unsustainable.
He further noted that “I fear the request of the petitioner regarding the issue of a direction from this court for quick disposal of your aforementioned question / request cannot be considered unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
