LAHORE - A woman hockey player last week moved the Lahore High Court (LHC) against the vacant post of the provincial ombudsperson.
Sayyeda Sadia Nawazish, who was expelled from the national hockey team after she lodged a sexual harassment complaint with the provincial ombudsperson against head coach Saeed Khan, moved the petition through her counsel Advocate Rabbiya Bajwa. The petitioner submitted that office of the ombudsperson was established under a special law, The Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010, but the position of the ombudsperson has been vacant for a year. She says that unavailability of the ombudsperson had deprived her of her right to be treated in accordance with the law and have access to justice under Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution, 1973. The petitioner says that an inquiry committee was constituted to conduct the inquiry, but no proper or formal inquiry was conducted to establish the facts of the case. Rather the committee refused to fairly exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the law and acted with a prejudiced mind. It started pressurising her to back out from her complaint. She says that she was being pressurised and harassed by the Pakistan Hockey Federation to withdraw her complaint against the coach.
After the incident, she says she and another player, Iqra Javed, were dropped from the team. Iqra is due to leave for Brunei to represent Pakistan in a sports event. Sadia says she went to the office of the ombudsperson for relief but she was informed that office of the ombudsperson was vacant due to unavailability of the ombudsperson for one year. She argued that Pakistan, being signatory to Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) under the UN, was bound to take effective steps for the elimination of sexual harassment. Not only she but many other aggrieved women are worried over vacant post of the ombudsperson, she submitted. She says they cannot get justice. The petitioner asked the court to order the government to immediately fill the post so that many women like her could get justice. She also asked the court to bar the respondents from taking any detrimental action against the petitioner till final decision on the complaint by the appropriate and competent legal forum.
The second important petition that was moved to the provincial top court was the petition against new prices of petroleum products. The petition was moved by Azhar Siddique, saying that petroleum products’ prices are revised every month by the Ministry of Finance and Oil & Gas Regularity Authority (Ogra). He submitted that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued an SRO on Dec 31, 2017 “in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of subsection (2) and subsection (6) of section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.” He pleaded that the Supreme Court has already disapproved taxation by the executive in cases of Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and Senator Rukhsana Zuberi. The lawyer argued that the federal government increased the prices of petroleum products illegally and against the constitution, in view of Article 3 read with provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. He contended that the government cannot levy taxes more than 17 per cent but it has been imposing exorbitant taxes illegally, increasing the prices of high speed diesel by Rs3.96 per litre, light speed diesel by Rs6.25, petrol by Rs4.60 and kerosene oil by Rs6.79. The petitioner alleged that Ogra, in connivance with the FBR, Ministry of Finance and Prime Minister’s House, has been continuously exploiting the public at large, as Article 3 of the Constitution does not allow any kind of exploitation.
Siddique alleged that the PML-N government has been hoodwinking the nation and not stating true facts about decrease in the petroleum prices in the international market. He asked the court to declare null and void levy of sales tax on petroleum products.
The third petition that came to the LHC was about application of accountability laws to judges of the superior judiciary and officers/generals of the army like other citizens of the country.
The petition came from Advocate Ghulam Yaseen Bhatti but the Lahore High Court’s registrar office said the matter would be taken up after winter vacation. The top court of Punjab observes two-week winter vacation every year. The judges of the superior courts have the Supreme Judicial Council for their accountability while the army generals claim they have their own system of accountability.
The LHC Registrar’s Office held that it was a not so urgent matter therefore it would not be fixed during vacation. The petitioner submitted that the LHC had held in its judgement (PLD 1978 Lahore 523 (663), “Islam does not believe in the creation of the privileged classes; it believes in equality before law for all. Rulers and the governed alike. It is opposed to all kinds of class distinctions.” He continued: “No one is above the law. Even immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution is not available to the PM for any criminal act or anything which is contrary to law. There are no provisions in the Constitution of Pakistan creating a special institution, a court or tribunal for the accountability of judges and generals. Hence, they (judges and generals) are bound by the accountability laws applicable to other holders of public publications. The petitioner also cited Justice Dost Muhammad’s remarks: “I’m a supporter of judges and generals’ accountability and this trial under the accountability laws should be held as it is held for common citizens.”
Bhati said: “If a learned judge or a general possesses any assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income or maintains a standard of living, which is not commensurate with his sources of income, he can be indicted under Section 9 (v) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and is liable to be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to fourteen years for this offence of corruption and corrupt practice. The Article 209 of the Constitution dealt with only professional misconduct and not any offences under the laws pertained to accountability for criminal acts.” The petitioner requested the court to order enforcement of fundamental rights of equality before the law (Article 25) and direct the federation to initiate preliminary steps towards application of accountability laws to all members of the judiciary and military.
Besides these three petitions, the SC last week barred doctors from going on strike, banned use of injection to boost milk production in animals and stopped the lower courts from granting stay orders in favour of illegal marriage halls.
On the other hand, Supreme Court Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, hearing a suo motu case on the poor state of affairs at public hospitals in Punjab, warned that he would close down all projects, including Orange Line Metro Train, if health and education sectors do not improve.
FIDA HUSSNAIN
