The IHC judge said if any cable operator was found violating the directions of the court or Pemra, immediate action should be taken in accordance with the law.The court also asked the Pemra counsel for the compliance of the order by 12:00 (midnight) on Tuesday.

Hearing miscellaneous petitions, the IHC bench observed that if Pemra is helpless in restoring the Geo transmission, its officials should express their inability to do so. The court ruled that the licences of those cable operators who are not airing the Geo transmission should be cancelled.

“The Geo TV transmission has been stopped by cable operators, while circumstances have been creating doubts about the role of a security agency. The court will protect all the constitutional institutions,” Justice Siddiqui observed.

The IHC bench was hearing the writ petition of the Shohada Foundation of Pakistan Trust (SFPT) that it had filed against ARY television for airing defamatory programmes against the superior judges. The IHC bench also heard the contempt of court petition that was moved by the Islamabad District Bar Association (DBA) through its counsel Syed Nayab Hassan Gardezi against ARY television for airing malicious content against the superior judiciary despite the orders of the IHC.

In the SFPT petition on June 11, the same court, through an interim order, had directed Pemra to ensure that “Mubashir allowed to conduct any programme on any TV channel till final decision of the instant writ petition”. The said order was later vacated by the Supreme Court.

Today the IHC bench directed ARY TV anchor Mubashir Lucman “to watch and examine his programme “Khara Sach” and make the statement as to whether it comes within the definition of decency, morality and not as yellow journalism. He was also directed to file his statement as to whether substance aired by him comes within the parameters of code of conduct of Pemra.

Justice Siddiqui directed to issue notices to All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS), Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors (CPNE) and Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) to render assistance with regard to the issue agitated through the petition.

During the hearing, Mubashir Lucman undertook to provide contents of the advertisement/other programmes containing the substance violative of code of conduct of Pemra, aired by different TV channels.

In the contempt of court petition of DBA IHC, the order reads, “Mr Mubashir Lucman, anchorperson of ARY news channel, has put appearance and submitted his non appearance from the court was not intentional but due to the fact that he was in UK in connection with routine medical check up. He is directed to file reply of contempt petition in writing before next date of hearing. Mr Sabir Shakir, Bureau Chief of ARY News, informed that Mr Salman Iqbal, Chief Executive of ARY News, has reached from USA to Karachi but his health was not permitting him to further travel to Islamabad, therefore, he could not appear before the court. However, he undertakes that Mr Salman Iqbal shall put appearance on the next date of hearing.”

Hearing the SFPT application, Justice Siddiqui observed that there is an impression that Mubashir Lucman is being provided with substance of his programme by some security agency. Addressing Mubashir Lucman, Justice Siddiqui said, “Do you see your own programme by yourself? See your own programme and tell whether it does fall in the domain of yellow journalism. It is because of you and some other channels that doubts have been created among general public about judiciary and different other institutions. You people have made judiciary a ping-pong ball.” Justice Siddiqui said Geo TV is not wailing in vain that its transmission is blocked at cable. He said everyone is after the state institution. “Everyone is aiming at Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice Jawwad S Khawaja,” he said. Justice Siddiqui further observed that the Judiciary will protect the sanctity of the state institutions. “We will see how someone would loose talk about the judiciary and the security agencies.”

Justice Siddiqui said the judiciary will inquire from all the journalistic bodies and television anchors whether there exits any code of conduct or not. “Upon misconduct we also take action against our own lawyers,” he further said.

The court after issuing notices to the above adjourned the hearing till September 22.Advocate Ahmad Hassan Rana represented Pemra, Kalsoom Akhtar Advocate represented SFPT and Syed Nayab Hassan Gardezi and Naseer Ahmed Kiani represented DBA IHC.

APP: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday ordered the cable operators to resume the transmission of a private television network that has been suspended from the last few months by midnight. A single judge bench of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui ordered the authorities to suspend the license of those cable operators who were not broadcasting the transmission or changed their respective position. The judge remarked that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) should ensure implementing the court’s orders in its true letter and spirit.

The News

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk suspended the high court’s order when senior counsel Irfan Qadir representing Mubasher Lucman of ARY News argued that the verdict was “arbitrary and whimsical”.

The apex court also issued notices to Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Shohada Foundation and Geo TV channel. Date for the next hearing will be fixed later.

Taking note of a series of talk shows which were critical of a judge of the Supreme Court (Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja), the IHC had slapped the ban on Mr Lucman on June 11.

The restraining order was passed by the high court on a petition filed by Shohada Foundation through Advocate Tariq Asad which alleged that Mr Lucman had launched a campaign against the judge.

Mr Lucman pleaded in his petition that the impugned order was “grossly illegal” because it undermined the independence of Pemra and negated the spirit of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, particularly when his show ‘Khara Such’ was “subject matter of proceedings presently pending in the Supreme Court”.

The petition said the Supreme Court, despite having seen a video clip of the show, had exercised restraint, being conscious of the importance of freedom of speech.

DAWN

IHC Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui passed the restraining order on a petition filed by the Shuhada Foundation through their counsel Tariq Asad. The petitioners maintained that Lucman had launched a campaign against Supreme Court judge Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and former Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

Justice Siddiqui observed, `It is amatter of great concern that Mubasher Lucman… has been found crossing all the limits of decency, morality and respect for the institutions and limits prescribed by the organic law of the hatred against the institution of judiciary`.

The court termed the anchor`s remarks `uncalled for` and observed that `surprisingly, neither the government nor the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) had taken any action against him` `In view of the matter, it is hereby directed that Pemra shall ensure that Mr Lucman shall not be allowed to conduct any programme on any TV channel till (a) final decision of the instant writ petition and if any channel (is) found accommodating him, strict action in accordance with the law may be taken against that channel,` the court directed.

Justice Siddiqui also directed the secretary of the Ministry for Information and Broadcasting as well as chairman Pemra to appear in person to explain, `as to whether there exists any code of conduct for electronic media and anchorpersonswho (are) found ridiculing the institutions of country such as the judiciary, army and other sensitive institutions and how many complaints have beennledagainstsuchpersons and TV channels and what action has been taken so far?` The matter will now be taken up in the last week of June.

`We will not air (Mr Lucman`s show) until the court vacates its restraining orders or the petition is disposed of,` ARY Television Director Programmes Ammad Yousaf told Dawn. `The programme Khara Such, however, will continue without Mr Lucman. We are changing the host of the show, who will host the programme during Lucman`s absence,` he said.

The petitioner`s counsel, Tariq Asad, argued that Mr Lucman`s show was prejudicial to the integrity, honour, respect and independence of the superior judiciary.

He alleged that Lucman has ignored ethical limits and was targeting Justice Khawaja and the former chief justice Chaudhry, as well as other citizens.

DAWN

The protesters said the government backed-Pemra had punished the Geo News unheard that was unlawful and against the all norms of justice. They said such a decision form an acting chairman-led Pemra depicted the government’s intention towards the freedom of media as Pervez Rathore, who ordered the suspension of the Geo News for 15 days, had served Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as his personal staff officer in 1999.

Carrying banners and placards inscribed with anti-Pemra, anti-Rathore and anti-government slogans, the protesters gathered outside Jang/Geo offices on the Davis Road to condemn the decision. They expressed their solidarity with injured anchorperson Hamid Mir and workers and journalists of the Geo/Jang Group. They condemned burning of vehicles and copies of daily Jang and The News in different cities of the country.

PPP workers including PPP’s lawyer Forum, Awami Workers Party, Civil Society Network Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami and representatives of journalists’ bodies including Punjab Union of Journalist, Lahore Press Club and Federal Union of Journalists participated in the demonstration.

The speakers said the government and ‘hidden hands’ wanted to squeeze the independence of media and freedom of expression but their dreams would not come true as the journalists community along with other segments of the society would foil any such move. They said the government should have acted as neutral player in the whole issue but the recent decision of the Pemra exposed the government which muzzled the most popular channel of the country.

The participants included Abdullah Malik, president, Civil Society Network Pakistan, senior journalists including Khawar Naeem Hashmi, Wasif Nagi, Maqsood Butt, Gohar Butt, general secretary of Jang Workers Union, Waseem Babar, president, Jang Workers Union, Rukhsana Nazli, Bedar Bakht Butt, Waheed Butt, Khalid Farooqi, Senior Vice President, PFUJ, Ijaz Mirza, Arif Zafar, Shahid Ch of PFUJ, Akbar Jatoi, Asim Hussain, Khalid Khattak, Shahid Aslam, Asher Butt, Amer Malik, Farhat Abbas Shah, Farha Zia, Mahmood Ahmed, Ameen Hafeez, Rasheed Ali, Ijaz Manzoor, Jawwad Malik, Nadeem Zia, Zahid Ahmed, Fahira Tehreem, Zahid Ali Khan, Muneer Khokhar, Sharafat Ali, Rabnawaz Khan, Rana Shahid, Muhammad Ali Zafar, Raja Arsalan Khan, Muhammad Shafique Ahmed, Tariq Jamal, Mirza Naseer Baig, Azhar Maqbool, Irfan Nazir, Sohail Imran, Idrees Tabassum of Pak-India Forum, Shahida Butt, Hizar Hayat Gondal, Muhammad Babar, Sabir Awan, Adil Khokhar, Siraj Qadri, Muhammad Hussain, Salman Rasool, Saeed Aziz, Tahir Saleem, Sohail Butt, Imdad Qureshi, Sohail Ahmed, SM Aqeel, Akmal Bhatti, Ghalib Abbas, Awais Malik, Usman Saleem, Zainulabedin and Naeem Sarfraz.

Bedar Bakht Butt said the curtailment of media meant derailment of democracy, adding that the illegal act of the Pemra was not acceptable to journalists and people of Pakistan. He said it was the media which fought dictators in the lawyers movement as majority of the politicians remained aloof of the movement until it succeeded. He said democratic forces should keep in mind that if hidden forces curtailed the media independence, democracy would be in danger as well.

Maqsood Butt said the Pemra decision was illegal and Geo/Jang workers would not accept it. He said the Geo News was punished only for raising truth, demanding justice and projecting the rule of law for everyone in the country. He said culprits who attacked Hamid Mir were still at large, which was a sign of serious concern for the whole journalists community. He said all conspiracies against the Geo/Jang Group would be foiled with the collective effort of the workers and the journalists community.

Waseem Babar said the Pemra decision was tantamount to rubbing salt into the wounds of Jang/Geo workers protesting for the last 45 days against the illegal suspension of the Geo TV network across Pakistan. He said Geo/Jang workers were ready for every kind of sacrifice to defend the largest and most independent media group. He said protests would be staged outside the Chief Minister’s House, Governor’s House and then a long march would be held towards Islamabad. He announced that on Monday (today) Jang workers would offer arrests against the Geo suspension.

Abdullah Malik said the Geo News was punished through a planned conspiracy. He said time had come for the journalists to identify and throw out all black sheep which were destroying the very purpose of journalism. He said the Geo/Jang workers had rendered great sacrifices for Pakistan, democracy and independence of media and again were fighting for the freedom of media. He said the whole nation was standing with Hamid Mir and the Geo/Jang Group as some ‘hidden hands’ wanted to curb the largest media house of the country for their vested interests.

Sirajul Haq Qadri said the Geo/Jang Group was a family of over 50,000 employees and they would defend it against all illegal acts. He said the Geo News made a mistake but shutting down the channel and Jang Group newspapers was not a solution to the whole issue as many made mistakes in the past in this country. “When the Geo News has rendered an unconditional apology, the matter should have been over”. According to Qadri, acts like suspending a TV channel earn a bad name for the country.

According to Ijaz, those Mullahs, who are issuing sermons against the Geo/Jang Group, should have pity on the nation. He said the Geo/Jang Group was a voice of the nation and no one could stop it from informing people about what was right and wrong. He said those who suspended the Geo News were not well-wishers of the nation as they aimed at depriving a large number of people of their fundamental right to information and entertainment. He said by blocking the Geo/Jang Group, thousands of employees of the largest media group and their families would be affected.

Ijaz said it was strange that persons like Mubashir Lucman were shouting against the Geo/Jang Group, independent judiciary and democracy, adding that such so-called anchors even did not know the basics of journalism. He asked why actions against persons like Lucman were not being taken by the Pemra as such persons have maligned and ridiculed sitting judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Farooq Chohan condemning the ban on the Geo News demanded that the political role of secret agencies should be stopped so that media, judiciary and political leadership could get ‘real’ independence. He alleged that agencies wanted to bring the Bangladesh model to Pakistan through such conspiracies but the Pakistani nation had become aware of such acts and would foil any such move. He said they would not allow the government and ‘hidden hands’ to curtail the media independence at any pretext.

The News

Justice Ijazul Ahsan ruled this while issuing a detailed judgment on a petition moved by Mubashar Lucman seeking initiation of high treason proceedings against the owners of the Jang and Geo group and cancellation of the declaration of Daily Jang and The News and the licence of Geo TV.

The federation of Pakistan is the main respondent in the petition. The judge was of the view that nothing has been placed on record nor has anything been alleged that may show any direct or indirect nexus or connection between respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and any act on their part which may have effect of abrogating or subverting or suspending or holding in abeyance the Constitution of Pakistan or any part thereof. Also, how could Mubashir Lucman who is associated with a rival media group, can claim that he filed a petition again Jang and Geo in public interest?

Further it has neither been alleged nor argued that the said respondents have attempted or conspired to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution or any part thereof by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means.

In addition, there is nothing on record to show that the said respondents have aided or abetted or collaborated in one or more of the afore-noted acts.The judge said the offence of high treason is a serious offence considering that on conviction, a person is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There needs to be substantial material and evidence available on the record that may furnish prima-facie basis for the federal government to come to the conclusion that a person is liable to be tried under the said offence. The petitioner has not placed any such material showing commission or attempted commission of the offence on record except a book authored by him. “This, in my [judge] humble opinion, does not constitute adequate or sufficient material that may furnish any basis to grant the relief sought.

Text of judgment:

1. The petitioner is a known anchor person of a news group in Pakistan, He has filed this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has appeared in person to argue the matter. He has pointed out that in a recent incident at Karachi, a prominent anchor person working with a news group owned by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 survived a murder attempt. He maintains that despite the fact that a First Information Report (“FIR”) has not so far been lodged, a scandalous campaign has been launched by the news group owned by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on the basis of false, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against the Inter Services Intelligence Agency (“ISI”). He submits that this vilification campaign is violative of Section 20 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 (“PEMRA Ordinance”) and the rules framed there-under. It is also gross abuse of the right of freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. The petitioner submits that ISI is a credible state institution. It has a pivotal role in countering threats against national security. The campaign initiated by the media group owned by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 could defile its reputation and undermine the confidence of the general public in the said institution. These actions, according to the petitioner, constitute high treason.

3. The Petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are directly responsible for the illegal actions on the part of their media group and are liable to be tried and punished for committing the offence of high treason.

4. He prays that the Federal Government may be directed to initiate a case for high treason against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 and the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code. A further direction is sought to cancel the license of respondent No.4, which runs television channels under the name and style of “Geo News” and “Geo Tez”. A prayer for cancellation of declaration issued in favour of respondent No.2 to publish the daily newspapers “Jang” and “The News” has also been made.

5. I have heard the petitioner at length and considered the arguments advanced by him.

6. The main focus of the petitioner’s arguments is that respondent No.1 should be directed to initiate a case against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for high treason in terms of Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The questions requiring determination by this Court are: – a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, direct the Federal Government to initiate a case under Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. b. Whether this petition is maintainable in its present form and the relief sought can be granted.

7. On hearing the petitioner and examining the relevant provisions of law, the answer to the afore-noted questions has to be in the negative for the following reasons: – a. The offence of high treason is a special offence. It is a constitutional offence defined by our Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 defines High Treason as follows: –

6. High treason.- [(1) 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.] (2) Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

[(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any Court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]

The contents of this petition and arguments of the petitioner do not show that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 fall within the definition of the “Person” visualized in Article 6. Nothing has been placed on record nor has anything been alleged that may show any direct or indirect nexus or connection between respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and any act on their part which may have effect of abrogating or subverting or suspending or holding in abeyance the Constitution of Pakistan or any part thereof. Further it has neither been alleged nor argued that the said respondents have attempted or conspired to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution or any part thereof by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means. In addition, there is nothing on record to show that the said respondents have aided or abetted or collaborated in one or more of the afore-noted acts.

b. The offence of high treason is a serious offence considering that on conviction, a person is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There needs to be substantial material and evidence available on the record that may furnish prima-facie basis for the Federal Government to come to the conclusion that a person is liable to be tried under the said offence. The petitioner has not placed any such material showing commission or attempted commission of the offence on record except a book authored by him. This, in my humble opinion, does not constitute adequate or sufficient material that may furnish any basis to grant the relief sought.

c. Article 6 (3) of the constitution provides that “Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason”. In exercise of powers under the said article, the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 was enacted on 29.09.1973. It provides that a person who is guilty (a) of having committed an act of abrogation or subversion of a Constitution enforced in Pakistan at any time since 23.03.1956; or (b) of high treason as defined in Article 6 of the constitution, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

However, in order to initiate proceedings for conviction of offence of high treason, Section 3 of the act provides as follows: –

3. Procedure. – No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a compliant in writing made by a person authorized by the Federal Government in this behalf.

I have specifically asked the petitioner if he has any authorization from the Federal Government to file a compliant relating to commission of the offence of High Treason by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He has candidly conceded that such authorization has neither been sought by nor given to the petitioner. He has also not approached the Federal Government with the requisite evidence or material to initiate such complaint in accordance with law and the constitution.

d. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as well as the news channels which are owned and run by their company have unleashed a storm of false, frivolous and baseless allegations against ISI by alleging that the said agency is involved in the assassination attempt on Mr. Hamid Mir’s life. He submits that such reckless and baseless allegations could defile the reputation of the agency and undermine the confidence of the general public in the institution. In the first place, even if the argument of the petitioner was to be taken on its face value, the said alleged actions do not prima facie fall within the definition of high treason narrated above. Further it appears that ISI/Federal Government has already initiated proceedings in this regard by filing a complaint with the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) through the Ministry of Defence and has sought action against the respondent under the PEMRA Ordinance and rules and regulations framed there under. There is no denial of the fact that PEMRA being the sole regulatory and licensing authority in these matters has the requisite powers and the exclusive jurisdiction to address this issue in accordance with law. The aggrieved party has approached the competent forum which has taken cognizance of the matter. I have asked the petitioner how he is an aggrieved party in this matter. Further being associated with a rival media group, how he can claim to have brought this petition in public interest. He has not responded with a cogent and legally sustainable answer. In these circumstances, I find that the matter is already before the competent forum having been bought before it by an aggrieved party.

Prima facie, the petitioner is neither an aggrieved party in this matter nor is this Court the correct forum to agitate these issues. As such this petition is not maintainable.

e. The petitioner has also argued that the vilification campaign has commenced even before an FIR was lodged and that the matter is not being properly investigated. In this regard suffice it to say that the investigative machinery has already been set into motion. Further, the Federal Government has constituted a commission comprising 03 Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to enquire into the matter. In these circumstances, the apprehensions of the petitioner are obviously misplaced and premature. Further if the victim of the offence or his family is dissatisfied with the manner in which investigation is being conducted, judicial remedies under the criminal statutes are available under the law, which can be availed by the concerned parties, should the need arise.

f. The petitioner has also argued that the license of Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (respondent No.5) should be cancelled on the basis of the allegations made in this petition. As discussed above, if at all the petitioner has any grievance relating to violation of terms of license or the provisions of the PEMRA Ordinance, the correct forum for the petitioner is to approach PEMRA through an appropriate application for action in accordance with law. This Court in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily interfere in matters in which adequate and efficacious alternate remedies are available. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to Rai Ashraf Vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti (PLD 2010 SC 691).

g. The petitioner has not been able to indicate any ground on the basis of which it can be inferred that the alternate remedies are either not efficacious or inadequate. Further the allegations made in the petition are generalized, vague and without any supporting evidence. The contents of the petition show that the allegations require a factual inquiry which would necessitate recording of evidence. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution does not ordinarily undertake the said exercise. As such even on this score, this petition is not maintainable. In coming to this conclusion, I am fortified by Fida Hussain and another Vs. Mst. Saiqa and others (2011 SCMR 1990), Shah Wali and others Vs. Ferouddin & others (2011 SCMR 1023), Amir Jamal and others Vs. Malik Zahoor ul Haq & others (2005 PLC 366) and Pervaiz Alam Vs. Pakistan Dairy Products (Pvt) Ltd. Karachi & 2 others (2000 SCMR 718).

h. As far as cancellation of declaration allegedly issued in favour of respondent No.2 to publish the Daily “Jang” and “The News” are concerned, there is a specific procedure prescribed in the News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance 2002 (“Ordinance 2002”) for issuance of declaration and cancellation of the same. Admittedly the petitioner has not approached the competent authority/ forum provided by law for cancellation of the declaration in question. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Reliance in this regard can usefully be placed on Khalil ur Rehman etc. Vs. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed etc. (PLD 2011 SC 512), Humayun Sarfraz Khan Vs. Noor Muhammad (2007 SCMR 307) and Ata Muhammad Qureshi Vs. The Settlement Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore (PLD 1971 SC 61).

In addition, not an iota of evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation that respondent No. 2 has indulged in any act or omission that may furnish basis for cancellation of the declaration in question. Further the remedies available under Ordinance 2002 have admittedly not been availed. No reason is forthcoming for failure on the part of the petitioner to do so. Confronted with this situation, the petitioner has not pressed this prayer. His main emphasis has been to seek a direction to respondent No.1 to initiate a case for treason against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Article 6 of the Constitution read with the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973. The reasons for refusal of this Court to grant the relief sought have been enumerated in detail in the foregoing paragraphs.

8. For reasons recorded above, I find that this petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed in limini.

The News