ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Tuesday allowed a woman Maria to go with her husband, Shehryar, in a case relating to a marriage of choice, while directing the girl’s parents to approach the relevant forum regarding their claim of a fake marriage.
The case was heard by a two-member bench headed by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi. During the proceedings, Maria told the court that she had not been abducted and had married Shehryar of her own free will. She categorically stated before the court that she was an adult and fully capable of making decisions about her life. Counsel for the girl’s parents argued that Maria was only 12 years old and that the marriage of a minor was not legally valid.
At this, Justice Rizvi observed that the birth certificate and B-Form produced in court had been obtained with a delay of 10 years, adding that the girl did not appear to be 12 years old by any stretch. The court was informed that Maria had recorded her statement before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which she had denied the allegations of abduction.
Justice Rizvi noted that the girl had consistently maintained that she was not abducted, had declared herself to be an adult, and that six months had passed since her marriage. The court further observed that Maria had embraced Islam prior to contracting the marriage. After examining all the facts and statements on record, the FCC disposed of the petition.
Meanwhile, the FCC dismissed a petition for leave to appeal challenging the non-allocation of marks for Shahadat-ul-Alamia in the appointment of a Qari (BPS-12), thereby upholding the decision of the Peshawar High Court. According to the detailed judgement, a two-member bench comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha announced the verdict after hearing an appeal filed by Shamshuddin.
Meanwhile, the FCC disposed of its suo motu proceedings concerning the murder of renowned journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya, holding that continued judicial supervision of the investigation would amount to impermissible interference in a matter that is already being pursued through lawful investigative and diplomatic channels.
The suo motu case, originally initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in December 2022 under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, was taken up to ensure an “independent, fair and transparent investigation” into the killing of Arshad Sharif, who was shot dead by Kenyan police officers on October 23, 2022, in Kajiado County. Following the 27th Constitutional Amendment, the matter stood transferred to the FCC for adjudication.
In its detailed judgement authored by Justice Aamer Farooq, and concurred by Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, the court traced the factual background of the case, noting that Sharif had left Pakistan in August 2022 amid multiple FIRs and a threat alert issued by the Counter Terrorism Department. After being asked to leave the UAE, he travelled to Kenya, where he was fatally shot at a roadblock by Kenya’s General Service Unit, which claimed the vehicle he was travelling in failed to stop despite warnings.
The court observed that following the incident, the federal government constituted a Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT), registered an FIR in Islamabad, engaged diplomatically with Kenyan authorities, and entered into a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreement to facilitate cooperation between the two states. It noted that no party appearing before the court had raised objections regarding the composition, conduct or findings of the JIT, nor alleged mala fide or impropriety in the investigation process.
“The primary concern, however, relates to the pace of the process, particularly in view of the involvement of, and the required coordination with, another sovereign state,” the judgment noted, acknowledging the inherent complexities of cross-border criminal investigations. Rejecting the request of the petitioner’s counsel to keep the suo motu proceedings pending indefinitely, the court held that continuous judicial monitoring of an investigation would violate settled constitutional jurisprudence. The court further observed that keeping the suo motu alive would result in the court “supervising every aspect of the investigation,” which would be “prejudicial to the accused and detrimental to the fairness of the procedure,” echoing principles laid down by the Supreme Court in past precedents.
Addressing calls for Pakistan to raise the matter at international forums, the court declined to issue any such directions, holding that foreign policy decisions fall squarely within the domain of the executive.
