"Avoid to disrespect Parliament," IHC tells Sheikh Rasheed

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Islamabad High Court on Tuesday expressed his resentment over a petition of Sheikh Rasheed against 72-member Federal Cabinet, ARY News reported.

“If the petitioner has annexed the list of special assistants and advisers in his petition when he was a minister in government,” Justice Athar Minallah questioned.

“Sheikh Sahib, you are respectable but avoid disrespecting the Parliament,” chief justice said. “This court respects the Parliament and also avoid unnecessary intervention in the executive powers,” Justice Minallah said.

“This mindset has damaged the Parliament”, the bench observed. “We have no other forum except the court,” petitioner’s counsel said. “Such petitions should not come to courts, the Parliament has already faced much insult,” the bench said. “The Parliament have elected representatives, the court won’t intervene in it,” Justice Athar Minallah said.

“If your individual fundamental right is being affected, come to the court but not in this manner,” the top judge said.

“The bench could have imposed fine upon you, but it is observing restraint. If you have to contest, go to the parliament as no forum is above the parliament,” Justice Minallah remarked. “Parliament itself makes the government accountable, why you are bringing the court in accountability of the parliament,” the bench questioned the petitioner.

“We have respect for you, but keep the courts away from these political matters,” Justice Athar Minallah remarked.

“I want to withdraw my petition,” Sheikh Rasheed pleaded. “The court will pass an appropriate order in this respect,” chief justice said.

“The courts were misused in the past, now this should come to an end,” Chief Justice high court said.

Former interior minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed on Wednesday moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the 72-member strong federal cabinet.

In a petition, Rasheed maintained that the 72-member federal cabinet of the Shehbaz Sharif government is a clear violation of Article 92 (1) of the Constitution.