Mr. ASIF ALI ZARDARI, SENATOR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Interior, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and others
This matter concerns an application filed by Senator Asif Ali Zardari seeking judicial directions to ensure his production in the sessions of the Senate of Pakistan while he remained in judicial custody. The core legal question was whether a member of the Senate, currently incarcerated, possesses a right to attend legislative sessions and whether the court should facilitate such attendance. The Supreme Court, referencing its previous order dated 24-6-1998, held that the petitioner should be permitted to attend the current session of the Senate, maintaining parity with the relief previously granted. The Court directed the respondents to make necessary arrangements for the petitioner's attendance, subject to the overriding condition that such attendance must not interfere with the ongoing judicial proceedings before the Ehtesab Bench. The key principle established is that while an incarcerated legislator may be granted permission to attend parliamentary sessions to fulfill their constitutional duties, such permission is conditional and subordinate to the precedence of ongoing court proceedings, ensuring that legislative participation does not obstruct the administration of justice.
- Does an incarcerated member of the Senate have an absolute right to attend all sessions of the Senate?
- Can the Supreme Court direct jail authorities to produce an incarcerated legislator for Senate proceedings?
- Does attendance at Senate sessions take precedence over ongoing judicial proceedings for an incarcerated petitioner?
- Rule 72-A, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Senate 1994
ORDER
' This is an application submitted on behalf of Senator Asif Ali Zardar for issuing directions to the respondents of ensuring his production in al Sessions of the Senate including the one being held presently.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner emphatically contended that the petitioner has a Constitutional right to participate in the proceedings of the Senate, and it was obligation of the Chairman, Senate by virtue of Rule 72-A of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Senate. 1994, to summon a member in custody to attend a sitting of the Senate.
3. The Deputy Attorney-General has vehemently opposed the petition and contended that previously permission was granted to the petitioner only for one session and there is no necessity for his participation in the current session and that the question regarding his attending future session has to be decided by the Court seized of the main appeals.
4. We have considered the arguments and perused the record. It may be seen that this Court while granting leave in appeals filed by the petitioner and counter-appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan vide common order dated 24-6-1998 made the following observations:-- "Since the petitioner is at present lodged in Adiala Jail, in our view, it will be just and proper to issue direction to the Jail authorities and to the Federation to allow the petitioner to attend the forthcoming session of the Senate. The petitioner shall also attend the Court proceedings by adjusting his schedule. The appeals arising out of the above two petitions may be fixed for hearing at an early date."
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is presently lodged in Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi, to face - proceedings before Ehtesab Bench. On the parity of circumstances and existence of identical position, we grant him the same relief as was granted to him earlier by this Court. We, therefore, direct the respondents to make all the necessary arrangements for allowing the petitioner to attend the current session, provided the proceedings of the Court are not affected, which shall have certainly precedence.
Cited by 1 case
- Mrs. FARYAL TALPUR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 6 others 2020 PLD Lahore 122, 2019 LHC 3171