Invoking jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Fawad Chaudhry sought permission to become party before Lahore High Court (LHC) in a matter relating to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif’s return to Pakistan.
Filing the plea, the PTI leader submitted at the time of Nawaz being allowed to travel abroad the incumbent Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had guaranteed that his brother will return to Pakistan.
Fawad had earlier filed a petition in the LHC to become a party in the ongoing case, which was rejected by the high court.
In his plea before the SC, the PTI leader maintained that Nawaz Sharif was a “fugitive criminal” and Shehbaz instead of acting as his guarantor “issued him a diplomatic passport”.
He implored the court to order the LHC to make him party in the case and questioned if the bench was “justified to dismiss the petition of the petitioner without discussing the facts and law point involved in the petition”.
The former federal information minister stated if the high court “rightly opined that the petitioner is not a necessary party when he is a citizen of Pakistan and [the] matter pending before [the] Lahore High Court involves corruption in [the] public exchequer and public money”.
The petitioner also questioned if the bench “rightly dismissed the miscellaneous application of [the] petitioner while not keeping in view the rights of Pakistani people guaranteed by the chapter of fundamental rights of [the] Constitution”.
According to the petition, the LHC was “not justified” in dismissing Fawad’s petition “which involved the law point of public importance and larger public interest of the country”, and the court was “not justified” in overlooking the settled norms of law regarding affidavits submitted before the court.
Fawad Chaudhry alleged the LHC wrongly dismissed Fawad’s petition “on a technical ground rather discuss and adjudicate upon the disgrace and foul play done by Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif with the court and law of land”.
The petitioner prayed the SC to set aside the LHC decision in the interest of justice whereas his name may be impleaded as party in the matter before the LHC.
