ISLAMABAD  - The parliamentary parties Wednesday feared that present political crisis emerged in view of sit-ins of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek may lead to extra-constitutional steps.
Senator Raza Rabbani representing Awami National Party and Balochistan National Party (Awami) before a five-member bench expressed apprehension that due to the lingering imbroglio the extra-constitutional steps may be on the cards. He in his reply to LHCBA petition put questions; “Whether any ‘political party’ or any other group, could at all seek ‘constitutional office bearer’ to disengage from office under ‘threat of violence or use of force in violation of the Constitution? Whether any political leader can legitimately involve the Pakistan Army in his design to achieve his unconstitutional objectives by attempting to reassure his followers that army by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will determine the future course of his action? Whether political leaders can misrepresent the support of Pakistan Army to their cause in public or private communications, thereby compromising the image of a national institution?”
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, hearing 11 identical petitions seeking orders for the state functionaries and the authorities to restrain from taking any extra-constitutional measure said the court has already passed an order in that regard on the first hearing of the case on August 15. The court directed the PTI and PAT to file comprehensive replies to the questions within three days.
Rabbani stated, “The seriousness of the political crisis, circumstances and or agitation can result in, lead to or cause or provide any justification whatsoever for ‘taking any extra or unconstitutional action’ at the instance of or on the part of any agency or authority of the federal government or state, or any other body whatsoever.”
The PPP senator objected to the Supreme Court’s role of a guarantor, as the apex court is to adjudicate cases and controversies between the parties. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) in its reply urged the apex court to resolve the matter within the domain of constitution under article 184(3), pertaining the question of enforcement of fundamental rights as matter of public importance.
The PAT and PTI had requested the court to stay away from the present standoff, as it would damage their struggle for the constitutional rights. The PAT, APML and PML-Q had prayed to the court to dismiss the petitions, while PTI has proposed 16 questions to the court to decide its jurisdiction. PTI counsel Yousaf Khosa said all the political parities including PTI were not in favour of any extra-constitutional step.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja made it clear that the apex court under article 184(3) has the jurisdiction to take notice of the violation of fundamental rights even if there was no petition before it. Justice Saqib Nisar addressing the counsel of Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid) said it was their right to make speeches and stage sit-ins, but these should not infringe the rights of others.

He asked PML-Q lawyer Sardar Razik though he was saying in the court that PML-Q wanted supremacy of constitution but his client was openly inviting the army to impose martial law in the country.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said, “We have traditions and values not to abuse or insult anyone, but in speeches they (Qadri and Imran) are doing it and consider it is their right?”
The court noted that the PTI and PAT despite the commitments to abide by the constitution and the guideline given in the SHCBA judgement have not cleared the Constitution Avenue even after 20 days.
The court asked the petitioners and the attorney general to inform which fundamental rights have been violated by the demonstrators.
The case was adjourned for one week.