Iftikhar Chaudhry’s appointment was void ab initio – by Yousuf Nazar
Forget about the fact that Mr. Zaradri is , like it or nor, the President and is bound by the advice of only the Prime Minister and no one else, although he should consult regarding the appointment of the judges. But consultation’s meaning cannot be stretched to binding advice. And I don’t need anyone including Aitazaz Ahsan to interpret that for me.
And there is a legal precedent of what consultation means.
The Malaysian Constitution requires the executive when operating under the general authority of the Cabinet, to consult with the Conference of Rulers, before making the appointment of members of the Judiciary, the Auditor-General , members of the Election Commission , Public Services Commission and Education Commission.
This very issue was dealt with by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in relation to the elevation of a judge of the High Court of Malaya to the Court of Appeal in the Oral application by Dato’ Seri Anwar [2000}. The meaning of the procedure for judicial appointments contained in Article 122B(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution was examined by the Court of Appeal in the following manner:-
The intention of this Article is clear i.e. the Yang di Pertuan Agong must act on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, the Yang di Pertuan Agong is required to consult the Conference of Rulers before making the appointment. To consult means to refer a matter for advice, opinion or views.
The Court of Appeal went further to differentiate “consult” from “consent” as it appears in certain provisions of the Federal Constitution:
“To ‘consult’ does not mean to ‘consent’. The Constitution uses the words ‘consent’ and ‘consult’ separately. For example, the word ‘consent’ is used in Article 159(5) of the Constitution which states that the amendments to certain provisions of the Constitution cannot be passed by Parliament without the ‘consent’ of the Conference of Rulers
The long history of even a misruled country like Pakistan does not have a precedent where the advice of the chief justice is binding on head of the state in matters relating to the appointment of judges. The order of the Iftikhar Chaudhry is a malfide and shows what a corrupt political instrument he is.
Iftikhar Chaudhry was Musharraf’s appointee. Musharraf illegaly usurped power. All his actions were unconstitutional. Even Supreme Court cannot validate violation of Article 6 because Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is within the boundaries of constitution and it has no power to validate a coup.
Therefore, Iftikhar Chaudhry’s appointment needs to be declared void ab initio by a simple resolution of the National Assembly. Thisman who has always acted in concert with the security agencies must be exposed. A first step would be to publish the list of all those journalists who have been on the take.
The axis of establishment, crony judges, and paid media persons must be first exposed to fight against the clandestine operation that is underway to take Pakistan back to 1977.
shame on u iftakar chudry, shem on u, u kill the seniority of Mr Rana Bahgwan Das who was most senior judge of suprem court, where was the ZAMIR of chief justice when he rob the seniorty of Rana Bhagwan Das, again shame on u iftakhar Chudry, u r the enemy of PPP,
Judges and Judiciary never resisted General or Martial Law:
Judges resist Generals, history is as under: The road to hell — and similar destinations
Islamabad diary Friday, January 01, 2010 Ayaz Amir http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=216323
Talking of Musharraf’s military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges — Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui comes to mind — did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO. Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover for the second time in the Zafar Ali Shah case (2005). Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. We should not be raising monuments to selective memory or selective condemnation. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility.
Judges and Judiciary always validated Martial Law:
Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Friday, August 07, 2009 By Ayaz Amir http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=191800
That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say. For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections.
So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water.
عدلیہ انتظامیہ جھگڑے میں نیا موڑ
رفاقت علی
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لندن
آخری وقت اشاعت: اتوار, 14 فروری, 2010, 22:17 GMT 03:17 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/02/100213_judiciary_executive.shtml
سپریم کورٹ نے خود کئی بار ججز کیس کی دھجیاں بکھیریں اور ایک بار
تو لاہور ہائی کے ایک ایسے جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر دیا جن کا ہائی کورٹ میں ججوں کی سینارٹی لسٹ پر سولہواں نمبر تھا۔ جب سپریم کورٹ میں ججز کیسز کی واضح خلاف ورزی کو چیلنج کیا گیا تو سپریم کورٹ نے حکم صادر کیا کہ وہ کسی جج کو سپریم کورٹ کا جج بنا سکتی ہے۔ ججوں کی تعیناتی کے سلسلے میں سپریم کورٹ نے اپنی ضرورت کےمطابق کئی متضاد فیصلے صارد کر رکھے ہیں اور شاید موجودہ سپریم کورٹ کو بھی ’پی سی او سپریم کورٹ‘ کےایک فیصلے کا بھی سہارا لینا پڑے گا جس کے تحت صدر کے اس اختیار کو مانا گیا تھا کہ وہ ہائی کورٹ کے سینئر جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر سکتا ہے۔
چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان جسٹس افتخار محمد چودھری جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا چیف جسٹس رکھنے پر کیوں بضد ہیں اس کا کسی کو علم نہیں ہے۔ جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو میاں نواز شریف کے دور حکومت میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا تھا۔
لاہور ہائی کے سینئر جج جسٹس میاں ثاقب نثار کو بھی نواز شریف دور میں ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا۔ جسٹس ثاقب نثار میاں نواز شریف دور کے وزیرِ قانون خالد انور کے جونیئر تھے اور اسی دور حکومت میں انہوں نے سیکرٹری قانون کا قلمدان بھی سنبھالے رکھا۔
Do keep in mind that Hafeez Pirzada who was opposing the NRO was one of the leading attorney in Zardari Cases. If you would go through the details of Cases and Parties these Lawyers [who run Judiciary Movement] have handled you would be amazed. Akram Sheikh daily appear on GEO TV for the sake of Judiciary and Rule of Law whereas he was General Aslam Beg’s Lawyer in Mehran Bank Scandal Case [case is pending since 1996], Hafeez Pirzada was one of the beneficiary of Mehran Bank [The recipients included Khar two million, Hafeez Pirzada three million We never learn from history – 7
By Ardeshir Cowasjee August 12, 2007 Dawn]
At the over three-hour-long dinner meeting, the 35 senior lawyers, including four former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Aitzaz Ahsan, Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, Ali Ahmed Kurd and Muneer A. Malik, were unanimous in their view that Barrister Ahsan still held sole authority to issue any protest calls or set any line of action, one of the participants told Dawn on condition of anonymity. Senior lawyers back Aitzaz Ahsan By Nasir Iqbal Thursday, 04 Feb, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/16-senior-lawyers-back-aitzaz-hs-07
Lawyers divided over strike call By Nasir Iqbal Tuesday, 26 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-lawyers-divided-over-strike-call-710–bi-11
Earlier it was revealed that SCBA’s Qazi Anwar was sentenced nine months in jail for possessing explosives in 1979, adding Lahore High Court curtailed his punishment; however, his charge was kept unchanged. BC approached for Qazi Anwar’s ineligibility Updated at: 1445 PST, Monday, February 01, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=97613
Latest is as under: Monday, February 08, 2010, Safar 23, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2010-daily/08-02-2010/u20419.htm
’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/09/090907_kurd_hit_judiciary_rr.shtml
Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
Judicial History for your kind perusal: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan – A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007 http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/judicial-jitters-in-pakistan-scholarly.html
Whigs, Robes & Shirwanis
‘We have too many high sounding words and too few actions that correspond with them’. Abigail Admas
Civilian and military rulers have been helped by eminent legal minds in judicial and constitutional matters. These legal celebrities change their own ideas depending on the situation. Governor General Ghulam Muhammad after dismissing Nazimuddin’s cabinet appointed A.K. Barohi as his law minister. Barohi was a strong advocate of a secular constitution and agreed with all those who wanted to keep religious leaders out of political arena. However when winds changed, then Barohi’s ideas also changed. Barohi later became legal advisor to General Zia and helped him to Islamize the country. Another bright legal mind is S. M. Zafar who had pleaded many cases of those in power. In 1997, while representing prime minister Nawaz Sharif in a contempt of court hearing, he argued that ‘another reason why the chief justice should drop the charges was that he was from Sindh and in Sindh there was a tradition that if someone comes to the house of a Sindhi, then all complaints against the guest were dropped’. (20) Very few lawyers can boast about presenting such arguments in defense of their clients in a court of law. Shareefuddin Peerzada is an old hand who is nicknamed ‘jadugar’ (magician). He has an unbeatable record of faithfully serving military rulers spanning almost the whole history of Pakistan including Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Haq and Pervez Mussharraf. He has been gifted with the rare ability to pull different varieties of rabbits from his legal hat to fulfill the needs of military rulers.
Under the shadow of judicial activism, many judges crossed the fine line and many at times conveyed their biases prior to evaluating the full body of evidence. Chief justice Nasim Hassan Shah at the start of hearing of dismissal of Nawaz Sharif government stated that he will not be another Munir (referring to chief justice Muhammad Munir’s decision of validating Ayub Khan’s coup in 1958) and that ‘the nation will hear a good news’. During 1997 elections, chief justice Sajjad A. Shah toured Lahore for few hours and made his mind about low turn out of voters. Later that evening talking to Governor of Punjab Khawaja Tariq Rahim he remarked that if there was such a low turn out of elections and ‘if the results of the election were challenged in court on the ground that it lacked participation by the majority of the people, it was possible that the court could reject the result’. He later repeated these remarks to caretaker prime minister Malik Meraj Khalid. (21) At other times justices have actively taken the side of the executive even at the expense of the independence of their own institution or given judgments for petty personal interests. In November 1977, chief justice Anwar ul Haq upheld Zia’s martial law under the doctrine of necessity. One day before the judgment, he called Zia’s legal advisor Shareefuddin Peerzada to inform him about the judgment. Peerzada asked chief justice if he had given the authority of amending the constitution to General Zia. Haq replied that he had not given that authority to General Zia. Peerzada told him that without giving Zia the authority to amend the constitution, chief justice will be out of his job and a new chief justice will need to be sworn in. Hearing that Anwarl ul Haq inserted the words of ‘including the power to amend it (the constitution)’ in the judgment in his own hand writing. (22) He had done this without consulting other justices who were unaware of this last minute back channel communication between chief justice and government’s legal advisor. It is ironic that in 1979, chief justice of Supreme Court Anwar ul Haq and chief justice of Lahore high court Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain held brain storming sessions with General Zia ul Haq at his residence to help the military ruler draft a Constitutional Amendment (Article 212-A) to curtail the activities of their own institution. This amendment removed any oversight by civilian courts against the judgments of military courts. (23)
The conflict between judiciary and executive in 1997 showed that there was very little if any regard for the most important institutions of the state. The high office holders merely used their positions to fulfill their narrow personal interests rather than defending any high ideals. Prime Minister used his absolute majority in the parliament in a very irresponsible way by hastily enacting new laws and even amending the constitution without any serious debate. It made mockery of the whole concept of representative government. On the other hand, bitter infighting among Supreme Court justices and reckless attitude of the chief justice shocked everyone. Chief justice really became a loose canon acting way beyond the legal norms. In an unprecedented manner, he was issuing orders from the bench ordering the president to nominate justices which he had selected. He was also issuing and suspending executive orders and even suspending constitutional provisions in a cavalier manner simply to humiliate Prime Minister.
A former chief justice Saeeduzaman Siddiqui long after his retirement pontificated that ‘by legitimizing military takeovers, the judges have abdicated their role to defend the constitution. (24) Siddiqui was the judge who colluded with the sitting government to oust his own chief justice. In addition, he served as chief justice for three month after General Mussharraf’s take over before being sent to the retirement wilderness . He conveniently forgot that during his tussle with chief justice, a number of senior lawyers came as mediators requesting supreme court judges to sort out their differences amicably to safeguard the sanctity of the institution of the supreme court but he went ahead and played a leading role in writing a sad chapter in the judicial history of Pakistan.
In 1996, supreme court deliberated about appointment of judges. Government fearful of the fact that the judgment will hamper its efforts to induct favorite judges pre-empted supreme court. The judgment was to be announced on March 20, 1996. On March 19, government announced the appointment of twenty judges to Lahore high court and seven to Sindh high court. Acting chief justices of both courts; justice Irshad Hasan Khan of Lahore court and justice Abdul Hafeez Memon of Sindh court were Supreme Court justices who were deputed as acting chief justices, administered oaths to new judges without even informing let alone consulting with the chief justice of the Supreme Court. (25) Both acting chief justices were appointees of Benazir and they returned the favor by administering oaths to newly inducted judges favored by government without informing the chief justice. Supreme Court justices finalized the draft of the order to be issued in case of recommendations about appointment of judges to higher courts. Government had pre-empted their move by appointing 27 additional judges to Lahore and Sindh high courts. Judges had decided to adhere to seniority principle and the short order was announced on March 20. One week later, chief justice Sajjad A. Shah held a meeting with president and agreed to confirm three acting/ad hoc judges (Justices Mukhtar A. Junejo, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri) as a ‘gesture of good will’ to the government. Within a week, chief justice had back tracked from the consensus opinion of the supreme court justices. He did not consult his fellow justices and it was no wonder that three justices (Ajmal Mian, Saeeduzaman Siddiqi and Munawar Mirza) admonished Shah for flouting the judgment regarding ‘judges’ case’. (26)
In an effort to avoid conflict with fellow judges or to be on the correct side, some justices didn’t live up to the expectations. In 1996, during the final version of the judgment of ‘Judges case’, there was disagreement between chief justice Sajjad A. Shah’s and justice Ajmal Mian’s version. Justice Fazal Ilahi Khan singed on Mian’s judgment on March 20 but when chief justice pressed him, he also signed on Shah’s judgment on April 3 even without reading it. When asked whether he had read the judgment because there was discrepancy between two judgments, he replied that he had no time to read it before signing it. (27) Fazal Ilahi Khan wanted to hedge his bets and did not want to ruffle any feathers even if meant an indefensible action. Retired justice Rafiq Tarar who had played an important role in splitting the judiciary at the behest of Nawaz Sharif became president of the country. When he had retired from Supreme Court in November 1994, he was not given a reference at his own request. Five years later, Supreme Court decided to honor him and he was invited for a dinner at supreme court where he was given a shield which was signed by all justices. (28)
The complex relationship of personal and professional responsibilities can be judged from one example. Agha Rafiq Ahmad, a junior session judge was a close friend of Benazir’s husband Asif Ali Zardari and he had helped in Sajjad A. Shah’s elevation to the post of chief justice of Sindh high court through Sindh chief minister Abdullah Shah, during Benzair’s first tenure (1988-1990). When Benazir was considering Sajjad for chief justice slot, Zardari held several meetings with Sajjad A. Shah and Agha Rafiq was present in some of those meetings. When Sajjad became chief justice of Supreme Court, he paid back his old friend. Agha Rafiq was serving as Director of PIA. Sajjad advised Benazir to appoint Rafiq as law secretary in the Sindh government and after sometime there he will be qualified to be appointed as a judge of higher court. (29) However, everyone was impatient and when Zardari wanted to elevate Rafiq to high court, Shah told prime minister that Rafiq was a very junior session’s judge (number 34 on the seniority list of 37) and it would create problems. However, Rafiq was elevated as Sindh high court justice. Chief justice of Sindh high court Abdul Hafeez Memon was pressured by a senator to nominate another junior session judge Shah Nawaz Awan (number thirteen on seniority list) for high court appointment. When chief justice Sajjad A. Shah asked Memon why he nominated him, he was told that he was being pressurized and the senator who wanted him to be elevated told Memon that if a judge who was number thirty four was being nominated then what was wrong with nominating number thirteen on the same list. (30)
Nawaz Sharif government elevated justice Mehbood Ahmad as chief justice of Lahore high court and second aspirant justice Muhammad Ilyas felt let down. Sajjad A. Shah, who was justice of supreme court at that time visited him and told him that ‘he should put his faith and trust in God, who would not let him down and would compensate him in some other way’. When Shah became chief justice, he nominated Ilyas who was by then retired for justice of supreme court. After taking oath, Ilyas was sent as acting chief justice of Lahore high court. (31) A judge was appointed to the supreme court not because he was fit for the post but to compensate him for some alleged injustice done to him and legal balls were juggled to give him the satisfaction to end his career serving as chief justice of a high court. A special accountability court headed by justice Malik Abdul Qayyum sentenced Benazir Bhutto and her husband on corruption charges during Nawaz Sharif’s government. In April 2001, supreme court set aside the judgment during the appeal when 32 tapes of secret conversations between justice Qayyum and then head of Accountability Cell and Nawaz Sharif’s aid Senator Saif ur Rahman were played. Sharif government had pressurized justice Qayyum to convict Benazir and her husband. (32)
Appointing judges as acting head of executives (Governor General, President, and Governor) gives some leverage to government. This practice has been followed for a long time in Pakistan. In 1950s, Munir served as acting Governor General when Ghulam Muhammad was away from country. Acceptance of positions in government during active service and openly joining politics after retirement also tarnishes the image of judiciary and creates doubts about their impartiality. Chief justice Muhammad Munir gave the historic decision of validation of General Ayub Khan’s martial law in 1958. Immediately after his retirement he accepted a government job in Japan. Later he also served as law minister during General Ayub’s rule. Political governments take care of their favorite justices even if they are pushed aside by their own brother justices. In 1996, Supreme court laid down guidelines for appointment to higher judiciary. This affected two retired justices who were appointed ad hoc justices of the Supreme Court and they were removed from Supreme Court. Benazir government obliged them by appointing one (Justcie Munir Khan) as provincial ombudsman and the other (Justcie Mir Hazar Khan Khoso) member of high powered Federal Public Service Commission.
Justcie Irshad Hasan Khan served as federal law secretary during the Martial Law of General Zia. He later rose to become chief justice of the Supreme Court (January 26, 2000 – January 06, 2002). High court justice Ghaus Ali Shah joined Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif and served as Sharif’s confidant for long time. Supreme Court justice Afzal Lone was sitting on the bench which restored Nawaz Sharif government in 1993. Later he headed the Lone Commission which absolved Nawaz Sharif of any wrongdoing in the cooperative scandal. Later, Sharif paid Lone back by nominating him to become senator. Supreme court justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar after his retirement served Sharif’s business interests and was later elected senator on Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League ticket. He was duly rewarded by appointing him president for his loyal services. Tarar paid back by retaining his post when he agreed to general Mussharraf’s request to stay on as president when the later had booted out Nawaz Sharif and assemblies. Mussharraf in turn returned the compliment by unceremoniously sending Tarar home in June 2001. Tarar was booted out of the presidency by putting him in a private car and sent home in the most humiliating way. Mussharraff needed to act in this way not for a great national cause but he needed to get the lofty title of president to get the correct protocol during his upcoming visit to India.
If one takes into account the relationship of various judges with their political patrons and their judgments on crucial cases, then some questions arise about the motive of their judgments. Justcie Tarar saw everything wrong with Nawaz Sharif dismissal by president in 1993 and was as one of the justice of the Supreme Court bench which decided to restore Sharif government. Justcie Sajjad A. Shah saw everything wrong with Benazir’s dismissal in 1990. He was one of the two dissenting judges (the other one was Justcie Abdul Shakurul Salam) in a 1991 decision who did not approve of president’s decision to dismiss Benazir. He wrote that president had exercised his power with ‘malafide intention’. (33) In 1993, Shah saw everything right with Sharif’s dismissal and was the lone dissenter in a ten to one decision of Supreme Court which restored Sharif government. In 1997, when his relations had gone sour with Benazir, he viewed dismissal of Benazir kosher and even called president’s discretion of sacking prime minister as a balance of powers and ‘a safety valve to prevent imposition of martial law in the country’. (34) When president dismissed Benazir government in 1990, the dismissal was challenged in courts. Peshawar high court bench dismissed the petition by majority but justice Qazi M. Jamil was the dissenting judge. Jamil was also on the bench which restored provincial assembly. For these ‘crimes’, he was not confirmed by the president. Benazir duly rewarded Qazi M. Jamil by appointing him attorney general during her second term.
Chief justice Nasim H. Shah’s favorable tilt towards Muslim League and his antipathy towards Pakistan Peoples Party were well known. He had exchanged harsh words with chief justice Muhammad A. Zullah when later received Benazir at a function when she was opposition leader. He headed the bench which restored Sharif government in 1993. He had been humiliated earlier during Benazir government when Benazir refused to sit on the same table with him. The reason was that Nasim H. Shah was one of the justices who had upheld the death sentence of Benazir’s father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979 (Nasim H. Shah was one of the majority justices on the bench which had given a four to three verdict of rejection of appeal of death sentence).
When chief justice Sajjad A. Shah was booted out by his own brother judges, the new court decided to clear up some contentious issues. All cases involving government and Prime Minister were dealt with judgments favorable to the government’s position. In March 1998, a seven member bench dismissed the petition challenging the 13th Constitutional Amendment. Interestingly, the petitioner was now not enthusiastic about perusing the case which suggests that the petition was part of the tussle between then chief justice (Sajjad A. Shah) and Prime Minister (Nawaz Sharif) and after the ouster of chief justice no one was interested in it. In May 1999, the court acquitted all who were charged with contempt of court including prime minister and several members of parliament. After the dismissal of Nawaz Sharif’s government an appeal was field against acquittal in September 2000. A five member bench of supreme court heard the appeal and convicted seven accused of contempt of court sentencing them to one month imprisonment and 5000 rupees fine. (35) Such decisions only degrade the image of judiciary and average citizen loses faith in the institution.
RESPECTED SIR 07-04-2011
SUB:- COMPLAIN AGAINST P. T. C SAEED ABAD KARACHI
GUZARISH HAY KAY HUM AP KI TAWAJA P.T.C SAEED ABAD KARACHI HUM MOJOD AIK MASLAY KI TARAF KARANA CHAHTA HAY
SIR:-
P.T.C MAIN ZULM KI INTEHA HO CHUKI HAY AIK LOCAL SUB INSPECTOR ALI MOHAMMAD MEHAR JO KAY LOCAL D.S.P ADMIN BANA HOWA HAY AUR D.I.G COMMAND KA IKHTIYAR ISTEMAL KAR RAHA HAY
SIR TASSUB KI BUNYAD PAR LOGO KO NUQSAN DAY RAHA HAY AUR MAR RAHA HAY AUR JANWARO KI TARAH SALOOK KAR RAHA HAY IS TARAH KISI JANWAR KO BHI NAHI MARTA JIS TARAH YEH ALI MEHAR MAR RAHA HAY AUR MULAZMAN KO BEGHAIR KISI WAJA KAY QUARTER GUARD MAIN BAND KAR RAHA HAY AUR BOHAT ZIADA BATTAMIZI AUR GALIYAN DETA HAY AUR LATON MUKKO SAY MARTA HAY IS TARAH KISI JANWAR KO BHI NAHI MARA JATA HAY KISI AFSARANAY BALA KO BHI IKHTIR NAHI KAY WHO KISI KO MAR SAKAY
D.S.P LOCAL JO ASAL MINA SUB INSPECTOR HAY O.P.S PERMOTION PAR INSPECTOR AUR US KAY BAD D.S.P YANI 02 STEP O.P.S BANA HOWA HAY US KA CHAILAY INSPECTOR UMER SOLANGI JO KAY 04 MARTABA RISHWAT LENAY KAY KI WAJA SAY P.T.C SAEEAD ABAD SAY NIKALA JA CHUKA THA AUR RAPE CASE MAIN PAKRA GANAY PAR IS KAY UOPPER FIRING BHI HOWI AUR YEH ZAKHMI HO KAR BACH GAYA
AUR PHIR LINE OFFICER LAG GAYA AUR AB RECRUIT LARKO SAY PAISY LAY KAR CHUTTIYAN DAY RAHA AUR KAHTA HAY KAY D.S.P ALI MEHAR KO MAIN PAISAY DAYTA HOON TAMAM STAFF P.T.C SAEED ABAD IS WAQT ROHA RAHY HAY
D.S.P ALI MOHAMMAD MEHER KAY ZULM SAY BEGHAIR KISI WAJA KAY JAWAZ BANA KAR NUQSAN DAY RAHA HAY AUR APNAY VILLAGE KAY PRIVATE JO KAY JAHIL HAIN UN KO SARKARI S.M.G RIFLE DAY KAR APNAY GHAR KAY AAS PASSS BETHAYA KAR GHAPPAY MARTA HAY AUR PARADE DEKHA RAHA HAY AUR APNAY AAP KO D.I.G ZAHIR KAR RAHA HOTA HAY
JANAB CHIEF JUSTICE SAHAB AFSARANAY BALA SINDH POLICE AUR MEDIA KAY MUAZIZ SAHEBAN SAY REQUEST HAY KAY ZULM KI INTEHA DAIKHEN AUR IS KA SADDE BAB KARAY AUR ZALIM D.S.P MEHER SAY MATTEHAD MULAZMAN KO ZULM SAY NIJAD DIL WAIN
INSAF KAY MUNTAZIR
TAMAM P.T.C STAFF SAEED ABAD KARACHI .