Balochistan High Court dismisses plea against Imran Khan

Web DeskMay 24, 2024 02:09 PMpolitics
  • BHC dismissed plea seeking Article 6 proceedings against Imran Khan
  • Imran Khan's alleged violation of Constitution by advising president to dissolve National Assembly
  • Dismissal of plea emphasizes importance of adhering to constitutional provisions
Balochistan High Court dismisses plea against Imran KhanImage Credits: pakobserver
The Balochistan High Court dismissed a plea seeking Article 6 proceedings against Imran Khan for alleged violation of the Constitution. The decision underscores the significance of following constitutional provisions in addressing grievances against public figures.

The Balochistan High Court (BHC) dismissed a plea on Thursday that sought Article 6 proceedings against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder and former prime minister Imran Khan. The two-member bench of BHC, comprising Chief Justice Hashim Kakar and Justice Shaukat Rakhshani, addressed the plea brought forward by Abdul Razzaq Shar, a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court. Shar argued that Imran Khan had violated the Constitution by advising the president to dissolve the National Assembly, thus advocating for his trial under Article 6.

During the initial hearing last year, the BHC bench had issued notices to the additional attorney general in connection to a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) case. The plea was linked to a NAB case where Imran Khan had expressed his willingness to personally appear before the Supreme Court.

Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan deals with high treason and states that any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

The dismissal of the plea by the BHC signifies that the court did not find sufficient grounds to initiate Article 6 proceedings against Imran Khan. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and the legal process in addressing grievances against public figures.

Related Post