Courtesy LHC
Court dismisses petition seeking referendum for presidential rule in the country, maintaining it is against basic structure of Constitution
The Lahore High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking directions for the government to hold a referendum on imposing presidential rule in Pakistan, stressing that this is against the basic structure of the Constitution.
“The writ of mandamus can only be issued, under Article 199 of the Constitution, to a person to do what is required by law to do,” read a judgment authored by Justice Jawad Hassan, noting that the petitioner had not cited any relevant law under which such directions should be issued or identified any party to whom they should be issued. “Most importantly, the prayer made by the petitioner is against the basic structure of the Constitution,” it added.
Filed by Hafeezur Rehman Chaudhry, the petition sought a direction to the cabinet division to refer the matter to Parliament for consideration, discussion and evaluation of the parliamentary system of governance, as well as to hold a referendum to ascertain the will of people. During proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel said that a petition had been filed after various applications to the cabinet division had not been considered or resolved. He said the petitioner had the court’s direction to do what is required by law to do, specifically under the Federal Rules of Business, 1973.
In his ruling, Justice Hassan explained that the LHC had already passed a detailed judgement by discussing the preamble of the Constitution on democracy in a 2021 case, which clearly states that principles of democracy should be fully observed. He also referred to a Supreme Court of India judgment wherein it was held that the basic structure and framework of the Constitution could not be altered as it was made by the chosen representatives of the country.
“I am afraid the request of the petitioner regarding issuance of a direction by this court for expeditious disposal of his aforesaid application/request cannot be allowed being not tenable in the eyes of law,” the judgment added.