Pakistan Case Law
2021 SCMR 863

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministryof Education

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2021 SCMR 863
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.C.M.A. No.4821 of 2018 in S.M.C. No.01 of 2014 and C.M.A. No.516 of 2019 in Constitutional Petition No.62 of 2017 and Constitutional Petitions Nos.62 and 63 of 2017
Date2021-02-15
Judge(s)Gulzar Ahmed, C.J., Ijaz ul Ahsan and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises in the context of human rights proceedings concerning the protection, maintenance, and restoration of minority religious sites across Pakistan. The Court addressed financial issues regarding the reconstruction of the Karak Samadhi, directing the submission of accounts to the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB). Regarding pending criminal cases from the Karak incident, the Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assured the Court that trial proceedings would continue expeditiously. The Court issued strict directives to the Chief Secretary of Punjab for non-compliance regarding the restoration of Prahlad Mandir in Multan. Furthermore, the Court ordered the Federal Government to issue a notification reverting the management of Katas Raj Temple Complex back to the ETPB pursuant to the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Finally, the Court ruled that ETPB properties cannot be utilized for its own employees or sold/transferred, directing full transparency and accounting regarding all existing leases.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Evacuee Trust Property Board utilize its trust properties for the personal benefit of its own employees or sell them?
  • Whether management of a religious trust property transferred to a provincial government reverts to the Evacuee Trust Property Board once the purpose of transfer is fulfilled?
  • What is the obligation of public officials to comply with Supreme Court directions regarding the restoration of minority worship places?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975
Evacuee Trust Property BoardKatas Raj TemplePrahlad Mandir MultanKarak Samadhiminority religious sitesETPB propertiesOne Man Commissionhuman rights

ORDER

In our last order dated 08.02.2021, there is a reference of Rupees Thirty Eight Million to be paid to Pakistan Hindu Council by the Evacuee Trust Property Board ("ETPB"). It is stated that an amount of Rupees Two Million has already been paid by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for reconstruction of the Samadhi at Karak. So far the claim of Dr. Romesh Kumar for payment of Rs.38 million by the ETPB is concerned, it is stated by the learned Additional Attorney General as well as learned ASC for the ETPB that no account has been submitted by the Hindu Council in response of said claim and that in case the Hindu Council submits the account of such amount of Rs.38 million, the ETPB shall consider the same and deal with it appropriately and in case any amount is due to be paid by the ETPB to Hindu Council, the same shall be paid. In this view of the matter, Dr. Ramesh Kumar may submit appropriate accounts to the Chairman, ETPB.

2. As regards the criminal cases initiated against the persons who are alleged to have caused damage to the Samadhi in Karak, it is stated by Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Sr.ASC appearing before us through video link from Quetta that the cases are not proceeding before the criminal Courts and on this account the arrested persons are facing difficulties. On this, the learned Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has stated that there is no obstruction from the side of KP Government for proceeding with the cases of arrested persons and that the cases are being proceeded. He however makes a statement that he will seek instructions with regard to the complaint made and ensure that the cases are proceeded expeditiously. In view of such statement made by the learned Advocate General, KP the learned counsel (Mr. Kamran Murtaza) for the arrested persons states that his above query stands satisfied.

3. So far Prahlad Mandir at Multan is concerned, no satisfactory report has been received from the Government of Punjab and even the Chief Secretary, Punjab is not in attendance despite the fact that it was directed to him to ensure that restoration of the Mandir is made in order to facilitate Hindu Community of Pakistan to hold Holi festivals in said Mandir on 28th March of 2021.

4. Once the Court had passed an order, it was the duty of the Chief Secretary, Punjab to ensure its compliance. We note that despite meeting of the 'One Man Commission' appointed by this Court with the Chief Secretary, Punjab so also by Dr. Romesh Kumar nothing has been done by the Chief Secretary and this Court takes serious note of such conduct of the Chief Secretary, Punjab. In the circumstances, the Chief Secretary, Punjab is directed to ensure that compliance of this Court's order dated 08.02.2021 is made in letter and spirit and such compliance report be submitted before this Court on the next date of hearing, when the Chief Secretary, Punjab shall also be in attendance. Two weeks' time is granted for this purpose.

5. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, learned ASC appearing for the ETPB- states that through notification dated 12.06.2006 management of Katas Raj Temple Complex in District Chakwal was transferred by the Federal Government to the Provincial Government Punjab for its maintenance with immediate effect and until further orders. We are informed that the maintenance which was required to be made in the year 2006 has already been done by the Punjab Government and now the purpose of said notification dated 12.06.2006 stands served and Katas Raj Temple Complex in District. Chakwal has to be reverted back to the ETPB. In this regard, let Federal Government issue necessary notification(s) and ensure that Katas Raj Temple Complex in District Chakwal is returned back to the ETPB to be dealt with under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Such an exercise will be completed by the Federal Government within a period of two weeks.

6. A report has been submitted on behalf of Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training which is not signed by the Secretary himself rather it is signed by Deputy Director (Literacy) of said Ministry. Such report is not in compliance of our order dated 08.02.2021 and as such the same is returned with direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training to submit a report duly signed by him to the Court and he shall also be in attendance on the next date of hearing. The report shall be made available by him within a period of two weeks.

7. The Chairman, ETPB has handed over to the learned 'One Man Commission' in Court a USB Drive containing full details of all Evacuee Trust Properties as well as details of all Mandirs, Samadhies and Gurdawaras, etc. The learned 'One Man Commission' shall examine such material contained in the USB as supplied to him by the Chairman ETPB and thereafter, if deemed necessary, submit his response to the same.

8. However, the Chairman, ETPB has been informed that none of the properties of the ETPB can be utilized by the Board for its own employees nor the same can be sold out/transferred to any person and in case leases of such properties have been made, the Chairman shall give full details of the same as well as the amounts which the Board is receiving from the lessees. He shall also in the report mention the rates which were initially fixed as lease amounts and the present rates of lease amounts which are being paid to the ETPB by the lessees. The duration of the leases shall also be indicated from the initial stages uptill now and the persons to whom such leases have been granted. This report shall be made available by the Chairman, ETPB to this Court within a period of two weeks and he shall also be in attendance before us on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to a date in office after two weeks.

MWA/H-4/SC Order accordingly.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.