Find a Lawyer

Civil Miscellaneous No. 82‑R of 1975 in Reference No. 1 of 1975 filed by United Democratic Front, in case entitled as above, decided on 15th July 1975.

(In the matter of impleading U. D. F., a party in the Reference).

--S. 6‑-Ban on political party‑Reference to Supreme Court‑Political party banned, Gazette notification issued, case heard on different dates, leader of banned party (under detention) brought before Court at his own request but withdrawing powers of his counsel, himself addressing Court, and staging dramatic walk‑out‑Most of leaders of applicant party claiming to be a united party comprising banned party attending Court and application also filed by an associate party of banned party requesting for being impleaded as party but nothing being contem plated against such party application rejected‑Subsequent application by applicant united party for being impleaded as party on ground of being able to throw light on subject‑matter of proceedings (banned party being closely and actively associated with applicant party), and to explain certain matters which, if unexplained, may "tarnish" image of applicant party as a whole and "ground may be paved to be taken against them all under the Political Parties Act"‑Daily proceedings of case being given wide publicity in press, leaders of applicant party having been actually present in Court from time to time in earlier stages of proceedings, applicant party being in know of nature of allegations contained in Reference, applicant's counsel also possessing first volume of documents filed by Referring Authority, applicant, held, cannot plead ignorance of proceedings in circumstances and applicant's apprehension, if at all existing, dawned rather late.

‑‑ O. XLIX, r. 6 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 187 --Power to do complete justice‑Impleading of parties‑Proper party --Meaning: party whose presence before Court necessary to enable Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings --Proper party must be one whose interest is likely to be affected even though no relief claimed against him‑Persons having no interest likely to be affected by proceedings, persons only generally interested in common with others, or persons whose addition likely to set up new cause of action‑-Not proper parties‑No relief sought against applicant party and applicant not likely to be affected by decision in proceedings, applicant, held, could not claim to be a proper party for reason of dis solution of one of its constituents being a matter of direct concern to applicant party itself and ability of applicants to give valuable assist ance to Court in doing full and complete justice‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10 (2).

Counsel for applicant party conceded that since no relief was sought in these proceedings sagainst the applicant party and since such party will not be affected by the decision of the Supreme Court, save and in so far that it might feel the impact of the decision like any other political party in the country nevertheless, he maintained that the applicant party can claim to be a party in these proceedings, because, the dissolution of one of its consti tuents is a matter of direct concern to the applicant party itself and the applicant party will be able to give valuable assistance to the Court in doing full and complete justice in the matter by reason of its knowledge of the activities of the defunct party, which have taken place from the platform of the applicant party and in implementation of the policy of the applicant party.

Held: A proper party is a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the proceedings. The terms "questions involved" include all matters, material to a proper decision of the case but the object of making such persons parties is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The person must, therefore, be a person whose interest is likely to be affected even though no relief is claimed against him. This does not, therefore, extend to persons who have no interest which is likely to be affected by the proceedings nor does it embrace persons only generally interested in common with others nor can persons be added as parties so as to set up a new cause of action which does not concern the original parties.

--O. XLIX, r. 6 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 189 --Every decision of Supreme Court, in generic sense, on point of law --Likely to affect everyone in country when similar point of law arises --Such state of affairs, however, does not give everyone in country a right to intervene in every proceeding merely because it is likely to affect him in some future proceeding‑Contention that decision in Reference may expose other political parties constituting applicant party to similar ban, held, no ground for impleading them as parties especially when their interest not in immediate jeopardy‑Parties in such eventuality-- Entitled to contest and defend‑Political Parties Act (III of 1962), S. 6.

In the generic sense, every decision of the Supreme Court on a point of law is likely to affect every one in this country in whose case a similar point of law arises, but this does not give every person in this country a right to intervene in every proceeding before the Supreme Court, merely because it is likely to affect him in some future proceedings.

All that the counsel for applicant party said in support of his case was that the decision taken in this Reference is likely to expose other political parties who are constituents of the applicant party to similar action by the party in power. This, however, was held to be no ground for adding them as a party in these proceedings and it was observed that if and when such an action is sought to be taken, they will be entitled to contest those proceedings and put up their defence, but they cannot be considered to be proper parties in these proceedings, where no interest of theirs is being placed in immediate jeopardy.

‑‑Parsons with attitude appearing to be partisan‑Not to be permitted to appear as amicus curiae.

American Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. III, p. 1046 ref.

‑‑‑ Art. 187‑Contention that in absence of applicant Court will be handicapped in doing complete justice and in case of applicant being impleaded as party applicant would be able to produce leader of banned party as witness‑Offer of producing any person as witness --No inducement to Court at all‑Court can always order for securing attendance of any person or for discovery or production of any document and shall summon any person should his evidence be necessary.

S. 6 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XLIX, r. 6‑Conten tion that application, in circumstances, not bona fide but filed with intent to frustrate proceedings‑Not without substance‑Applicant not qualified for being impleaded as party‑Application dismissed.

Yahya Bakhtiar, Attorney‑General for Pakistan instructed by Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Applicant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by M. A. Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for United Democratic Front.

Date of hearing: 15th July 1975.

This application, which purports to have been filed under Article 187 of the Constitution, read with Order XLIX, rule 6 of the Rules of this Court, is by the United Democratic Front for being impleaded as a party in the Reference above‑mentioned.

The United Democratic Front, it is said, was formed in March 1973, by a number of opposition parties, including the now defunct National Awami Party, and some independent opposition members of the National Assembly, who, while retaining their individual entities, united "with the object of maintaining and strengthening the solidarity, integrity and ideology of Pakistan, and for developing the democratic institutions and for restoration of civilized norms of political conduct and behaviour in the country".

The Front claims that its objectives are set out in its declaration, which is described as the Islamabad Declaration', and a copy whereof is annexed to the petition. The Front also has a General Council consisting of six representatives, nominated by each constituent party. It has also a Central Action Committee, which includes Mr. Abdul Wali Khan, and eleven other office‑bearers.

The applicants claim that the defunct National Awami Party had been closely and actively associated with the Front, which is, as such, in the know of the activities of the said defunct Party as one of its constituents and can depose thereto.

Learned counsel appearing in support of the application has also referred us to certain copies of extracts of speeches of Mr. Wali Khan, which have been filed along with the Reference itself and has claimed that these speeches of Mr. Wali Khan, complained of in the Reference, were actually delivered at meetings organised under the banner of the Front and, therefore, in a way, the Front itself was directly involved in these proceedings.

Similarly, a number of other documents, such as, telegrams, etc, sent to the President of the Country by the Members of the Front, including Mr. Wali Khan, as also the incident reported in the Dhanak' Newspaper, make it necessary for the Front to explain its own attitude. Learned counsel apprehends that if these documents are left unexplained, the image of the United Democratic Front itself as a whole may thereby be tarnished and "ground may be paved to take action against them all under the Political Parties Act". Hence, in the larger national interest particularly since the decision in the Reference "is bound to affect the entire political life of the ‑country in general", the Front "has resolved to approach this Court with the request that it should be impleaded as a party and be allowed to participate and depose about the defunct National Awami Party's joint activities as a constituent member of the United Democratic Front".

The National Awami Party, it will be recalled, was banned by a notifica. tion, issued by the Government on the 10th February 1975. The Reference was filed within 15 days thereof, on 24‑2‑1975 and the hearing of the Reference, on the preliminary points, commenced on the 14th May 1975. On that date some of the leaders of the United Democratic Front we a also present in Court, presumably interested in the bearing of the contempt petition filed by Ch. Zahoor Ilahi for the committal of the Prime Minister for contempt of Court. The matter again came up for hearing on the 16th June 1975, and on the 19th June 1975, Mr. Wali Khan himself, at his request, was permitted to be brought to the Court. After coming to the Court, he withdrew the powers of his counsel, sought leave to address the Court in person, and ultimately after making his address staged a dramatic walk‑out from the Court.

On this occasion too, most of the leaders of the parties, comprising the United Democratic Front, were present in Court and almost all of them followed Mr. Wali Khan out of the Court. One or two that might have stayed behind, also followed suit a few minutes later.

Thereafter, an application was made on the 30th June 1975, on behalf of Maulvi Mufti Mahmood, one of the components of the United Democratic Front, which had, along with the defunct National Awami Party, formed coali tion Governments in 1972 in the provinces of N. W. F. P. and Baluchistan. In that application too, a request was made for impleading the JUI as a party to these proceedings on the ground that certain allegations had been made against the said party in the opening address of the learned Attorney-General and it was apprehended that evidence might be led which might adversely affect the JUL The learned Attorney‑General clearly stated that he had no intention of leading any evidence against the JUI or any of its leaders and whatever he had said was in reply to the written statement filed by Mr. Abdul Wali Khan himself. In view of this statement, the impleading of JUI was considered unnecessary and the application was rejected.

Nothing further happened till the 9th July 1975, when the present petition was filed. In these circumstances, we cannot help observing if there was any foundation at all in the apprehension now expressed by the Front, then the realization has dawned upon them rather late in the day. They cannot plead ignorance of these proceedings, because, not only have the daily proceedings of this matter been given wide publicity in the press, but, as earlier indicated, leaders of the United Democratic Front have actually been present in Court from time to time in the earlier stages of these proceedings. If the defunct National Awami Party is a constituent of the United Democratic Front, then we have no reason to think that the Front did not also come to know of the nature of the allegations contained in the Reference against the National Awami Party. Indeed, we find that the learned counsel appearing in support of this application is already possessed of the first volume of the documents filed by the Referring Authority, The learned Advocate‑on‑Record instructing him also instructed Mr. Mahmood Ali Kasuri, at the earlier stages, on behalf of the N. A. P.

Be that as it may, the question is as to whether the Front can claim to be impleaded in these proceedings as of right on the ground that it is a necessary party. Learned counsel has very frankly conceded that he cannot put his case as high as that. He concedes that since no relief is sought in these proceedings against the United Democratic Front and since the Front will not be affected by the decision of this Court, save and in so far that it might feel the impact of the decision like any other political party in the country. Nevertheless, the learned counsel does maintain that the United Democratic Front can claim to be a proper party in these proceedings, because, the dissolution of one of its constituents is a matter of direct concern to the Front itself and the Front will be able to give valuable assistance to this Court in doing full and complete justice in the matter by reason of its knowledge of the activities of the defunct party, which have taken place from the platform of the Front and in implementation of the policy of the Front.

Now a proper party is a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the proceedings. The terms "questions involved" include all matters, material to a proper decision of the case but the object of making such persons parties is to prevent multiplicity c of proceedings. The person must, therefore, be a person whose interest is likely to be affected even though no relief is claimed against him. This does not, therefore, extend to persons who have no interest which is likely to be affected by the proceedings nor does it embrace persons only general interested in common with others nor can persons be added as parties so as to set up a new cause of action which does not concern the original parties.

In a generic sense, every decision of this likely to affect every one in this country in whose case a similar point of law arises, but this does net give every person in. this country a right to intervene in every proceeding before this Court, merely because it is likely to affect him in some future proceedings.

All that the learned counsel has said in support of his case is that the decision taken in this Reference is likely to expose other political parties who are constituents of the United Democratic Front to similar action by the party in power. This, however, in our opinion, is no ground for adding them as a party in these proceedings. If and when such an action is sought to be taken, they will be entitled to contest those proceedings and put up their defence, but they cannot, in our view, be considered to be proper parties in these proceedings, where no interest of theirs is being placed in immediate jeopardy.

Learned counsel has lastly contended that even if the applicants cannot come in as proper parties, they might be allowed to appear as amicus curiae as distinguished from an intervener. In support of this contention, he has referred to the definition of an amicus curiae given in Volume III of the American Corpus Juris Secundum, at page 1046. The same volume, however, on the next page, states that:‑

"One whose attitude appears to be partisan, should not be permitted to appear as amicus curiae."

Under this rule, the petitioners would be disqualified even to appear as amicus curiae, because, on their own averment, they are very much interested

is the cause of the National Awami Party.

We are also unable to agree that in the absence of the applicants this Court will be handicapped in doing complete justice in the cause now pending before it. The offer of producing Mr. Wali Khan as a witness is no induce ment at all. If the Court, at any stage, feels the necessity, it can always make an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or for securing the discovery or production of any document. Even if the evidence of any of the leaders of the constituent parties of the Unite Democratic Front becomes necessary this Court will have no hesitation summoning them as witnesses irrespective of whether the Front is a party to these proceedings or not.

The learned Attorney‑General has, of course, vehemently opposed this application and has contended that this is not a bona fide application at all. According to him, the intention behind this application is to frustrate the proceedings of this Court. If the applicants had been genuinely interested in these proceedings, they would have moved this Court long before this day and not allowed five months to elapse before taking a decision to make such an application.

The contentions of the learned Attorney‑General, are not without sub stance, but it is necessary for us to go into these questions, as we are satisfied that the applicants cannot qualify for being impleaded as parties in these proceedings either on the ground of being either necessary parties' or on the ground of being proper parties'. We are also not inclined to give them permission to appear as amicus curiae, as they are, on their own showing, partisans and not disinterested

In course of the hearing of the petition we had observed that Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi might sit in Court and watch the proceedings on behalf of the U. D. F. and, if considered necessary, might suggest questions to the amicus curiae for being put to the witnesses. Mr. Batalvi, however, did not appear disposed to accept the suggestion.

In these circumstances, this application is dismissed.

S. A. H. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.