P L D 1975 Supreme Court 463

Present: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqoob Ali, Salahuddin

Ahmed, Anwarul Haq, Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Afzal Cheema,
JJ

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Applicant

-

versus

ABDUL WALI KHAN Respondent

-

Civil Miscellaneous No. 82-R of 1975 in Reference No. 1 of 1975 fled 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).

(a) Political Parties Act (III of 1962).

-

--S. 6--Ban on political party-Reference to Supreme Court-Political party

banned, Gazette notifcation 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 fled 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 frst volume of documents
fled by Referring Authority, applicant, held, cannot plead ignorance of
proceedings in circumstances and applicant's apprehension, if at all existing,
dawned rather late.

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956

-

- 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.

(c) Supreme Court Rules, 1956

-

--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.

(d) Amicus curiae

-

--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.

(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

-

- 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.

(f) Political Parties Act (III of 1962) --

S. 6 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XLIX, r. 6-Conten tion that
application, in circumstances, not bona fde but fled with intent to frustrate
proceedings-Not without substance-Applicant not qualifed 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.

JUDGMENT
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J. This application, which purports to have
-

been fled 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 ofce-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
fled 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 notifca. tion,
issued by the Government on the 10th February 1975. The Reference was
fled 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 fled 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 fled
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
fled. 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 fnd that the learned counsel appearing in
support of this application is already possessed of the frst volume of the
documents fled 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 defnition 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 disqualifed 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 fde 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 fve 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 satisfed 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.
;