Taliban have no authority to decide cases in Pakistan: SC

Taliban have no authority to decide cases in Pakistan: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has said that the Taliban have no legal authority to decide cases and their decision did not apply to Pakistan, an independent country whose law applies to every inch of its territory.

The decision was taken by a two-judge SC bench comprising Justice Qazi Faiz Issa and Justice Maqbool Baqir on a petition filed by Gul Nawaz and others against the 2019 Peshawar High Court order in the land dispute case.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court's attention was drawn to the confession (agreement) - a 'decision' issued by the Islamic Taliban, Waziristan, and Afghanistan (Taliban) buildings.

The apex court was informed that the petitioners had entered into an agreement on April 30, 2009, for the sale of some lands. He was required to present evidence in support of his claim on the ground before a trial judge but failed to do so despite numerous opportunities. As a result, he was barred and the judge dismissed his case.

The land dispute case was illegally presented as an "agreement" of the militant organization

The petitioners then challenged the decision in the PHC, which dismissed their appeal. As a result, he approached the Supreme Court with a plea that he was not given a fair chance to present evidence before closing his case and dismissing his claim.

The trial court in its order dated October 3, 2012, had referred to the petition filed by the petitioners seeking their permission of the trial court to prove the confession through secondary evidence as to the original statement Rashid Ahmed).

The apex court's order was recalled that the petitioners had relied on the affidavit, but later argued that it was a decision instead of a document.

Leaving aside the question of whether the petitioners could change their position so radically, Justice Isa observed, "We have examined the document which was the" decision "of the Islamic Taliban, Waziristan, and Afghanistan."

Justice Issa observed that the petitioners' attempt to classify the desired decision as an alternative agreement was not justified as it had harmed the sovereignty of Pakistan.

The ruling said the Taliban had no legal authority to adjudicate cases because they had infiltrated Pakistan and by mid-2005 had taken illegal possession and control of Pakistani territory, including parts of Waziristan.

"Pakistan is an independent country and the applicable law of Pakistan applies to more than every inch of its territory," the ruling said, adding that every square inch of Pakistan's territory was valuable and free. And should be kept safe.

Physical occupation of any part of Taliban-occupied Pakistan is unconstitutional and any decision taken by the Taliban will be unconstitutional, illegal, and will not have any legal effect.

Justice Isa observed, "Violation of the constitution and subjugation of the people does not give legitimacy to any aggressor nor does it legitimize the decisions of any aggressor."

The decision states that the agreement required under section 23 of the Treaty Act, 1872, was declared "haraam, illegal and contrary to public policy" and, therefore, had no legal effect.

He observed that the trial court had given the petitioners ample opportunity to present evidence, but they repeatedly failed to abide by the agreement between themselves and the respondents. "Therefore, the leave to appeal has been denied and as a result, the petition has been dismissed," the apex court decision said.

Post a Comment