ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday halted the trial of minor maid Tayyaba’s torture case, which was being tried before Judicial Magistrate Syed Haider Ali Shah.
“Keeping in view the background of the case which is publicly known, we while exercising jurisdiction to do complete justice under Article 184(3) of the constitution, direct the learned High Court to consider whether the case titled State vs Maheen Zafar pending before Syed Haider Ali Shah Judicial Magistrate should be transferred to its own jurisdiction,” t
he court ruled.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief
Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar, heard a civil miscellaneous application, filed by Asma Jahangir.
On January 4, the CJP had taken suo motu notice of alleged torture of the minor maid by the wife of Additional District and Sessions Judge Khurram Ali.
On the next day, Asma filed an application, seeking action against the accused judge.
During the hearing, Asma revealed that the prosecution had not invoked relevant sections of slavery and human
trafficking in the challan, adding that it had not been submitted before the trial court. She said that it was now the question of transferring the case.
She informed t
he court that she was being pressed to step down from the lit
igation, adding that at the same time the state was not interested to perform its obl
igation.
During the hearing,
Justice Saqib Nisar observed that they would take the issue to its logical conclusion.
Asma contended that under Section 526 of CrPC only an interested party or the advocate general could approach for transfer of the case, adding that when the state was not helping out in the matter then t
he court should direct transferring of the case.
She requested t
he court to appoint a special prosecutor from another province to probe the matter.
The CJP observed that it was the responsibility of the state to ensure protection of life, adding that t
he court would try to achieve the objectives within the parameters of law and constitution.
Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana told t
he court that there was no restriction and t
he court was empowered under Article 187 to direct the high court when fundamental rights were involved in a matter.
W
aqar said t
he court can examine it under Article 187 of the constitution.
Later, t
he court adjourned the hearing until March 21 with the ruling that the issue of custody of the minor would be decided on next hearing.
