MIRPUR ( AJK) , (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point news – 19th Nov, 2024) The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on Monday dismissed two separate identical writ petitions challenging the recently promulgated “The Peaceful Assembly And Public Order Ordinance-2024” by giving the ruling that the impugned Ordinance does not callany interference.
“Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed in limine as no order as to the costs”, two-member bench of the learned AJK HC said in its order issued in Muzaffarabad.
The two-member bench of the High Court of Azad Jammu Kashmir, comprising Chief Justice Mr. Justice Sadaqat Hussain Raja and judge Justice Sardar Liaqat Hussain, dismissed both of the separate writ petitions filed by the AJ&K Bar Council and Ehsan-Ul-Haq Advocate High Court Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Member of the High Court Bar Association Azad Jammu and Kashmir; Waqas Mehmood Shahid Advocate High Court AJ&K, Member of High Court Bar Association Azad Jammu and Kashmir; Obaid-ur-Rehman Advocate High Court AJ&K, Member of Central Bar Association Muzaffarabad AJK against Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Prime Minister of AJK and other concerned officials of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir government challenging the aforesaid Ordinance “The Peaceful Assembly And Public Order Ordinance-2024”.
In its detailed judgement the learned High Court of AJK said that in the afore-mentioned writ petitions, the legality of “The Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Ordinance 2024 dated 29.10.2024 was questioned.
The learned court order continued as saying “It is significant to mention here that despite, the petitions presented and heard separately, the complexities and interconnectedness of issues have resulted in a resolution through this single judgment.
Brief facts as narrated in both the writ petitions are that an Ordinance titled “The Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Ordinance, 2024 dated October 29, 2024” was published in the Extraordinary Gazette on October 30, 2024.It is alleged in the writ petitions that the aforesaid Ordinance has been issued in violation of the Constitution, specifically contravening its expressed provisions and undermining both the spirit of the Interim Constitution and Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. In both the writ petitions, it is prayed that the said Ordinance is deemed untenable, hence, quashed and set-aside.
Raja Amjad Ali Khan Advocate, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of AJ&K Bar Council argued that the impugned Ordinance is promulgated in abrogation of Constitution and is a severe violation of fundamental rights of the State Subjects.
He emphasized that the fundamental rights of Assembly, Speech and Association are guaranteed by the Interim Constitution, 1974 and by promulgating the Ordinance, the executive snatched the fundamental rights of the State Subjects.The learned counsel reiterated the facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition and prayed for acceptance of the writ petition.
Sh. Masood Iqbal, the learned Advocate General voluntarily appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of his arguments, the learned AG relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court titled as “Mahmood Ahmed Musafir Vs. Deputy Commissioner Muzaffarabad and another” decided on 13.04.2016 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in limine.
Hashaam Anjum Advocate, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2872/24 submitted that the Ordinance is promulgated in violation of the expressed provisions of Interim Constitution, 1974. He further submitted that the impugned Ordinance is not maintainable and reiterated the facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition.
Ch. Muhammad Manzoor, the learned AAG also voluntarily appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in limine.
According to the pleadings and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises is whether the fundamental rights mentioned in the Article of Interim Constitution, 1974 are absolute? To answer this question, we have to analyses the above mentioned clauses of the Interim Constitution, 1974.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that in a case titled as “Mahmood Ahmed Musafir Vs. Deputy Commissioner Muzaffarabad and another” decided on 13.04.2016, this Court has already directed the District Administration to regulate the processions and rallies to protect the public at large for inconvenience and to mention specific place for procession and rallies.
“The upshot of the aforesaid discussion leads to conclude that the impugned Ordinance does not callany interference.
Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed in limine as no order as to the costs”, the learned Court order concluded.
