' The relevant facts for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the respondent, a Committee of the National Assembly, is holding inquiry in the scam of purchase of 5 helicopters. It has required the petitioner to appear before it. The learned counsel has referred to special report appearing in the Daily 'Muslim', dated 12-4-1998, which shows that the respondent Sub-Committee has directed to issue a proclamation under relevant rules requiring attendance of former Prime Minister before it on 19-5-1998. It is added that the proclamation also required attendance of Malik Allah Yar Khan, the petitioner and M.A. Khan, 'so-called Director of Cux Hevan', the firm with which agreement was signed.
2. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was suffering from Kidney problem and ultimately he was admitted in September, 1997 in Kidney Centre, Rawalpindi. He was operated on 18-9-1997 for transplantation of a new Kidney successfully. It is added that after three/four months he developed infection and was referred to Senior Surgeon, Crommon Well Hospital London. He accordingly left Pakistan on 28-2-1998.
3. The grievance is that the respondent has summoned him to appear as witness. It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application through Advocate to exempt him from appearance and instead allow the counsel to appear in his absence in view of the provisions of section 2 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973. It is added that the respondent Committee has decided to issue proclamation under Order, XVI, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. As is clear from the clipping of newspaper 'Muslim', dated 12th of April, 1998 appended as Annexure-A. It is argued that the petitioner never denied to appear but he has been advised by his Consultant Surgeon not to travel. In this behalf reference is made to certificates Annexures B and B/1.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the file. The question for determination is whether the proceedings of the respondent are immunec from challenge or not. In this behalf reference may be made to the following portions of Article 66 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973:-- "66 (1)..............................................................................................................................
"(2) In other respects, the powers, immunities and privileges of (Majlis-eShoora (Parliament), and the immunities and privileges of the members of (Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), shall be such as may from time to time be defined by law and, until so defined, shall be such as were, immediately before the commencing day, enjoyed by the National Assembly of Pakistan and the Committee thereof and its members.
(3) Provision may be made by law for the punishment, by a House, of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before a Committee of the House when duly required by the Chairman of the Committee so to do:-- ' Provided It is clear from the above portion of the Article that proceedings in the Assembly and before the Committees are immune from legal proceedings. In this behalf reliance can also be placed on the judgment reported as M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishan Sinha and others AIR 1960 SC 1186.
Reference in this behalf can also be made to the judgments reported as Asif Ali Zardari v. Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) II, Karachi and 2 others PLD 1992 Karachi 430 and Wasi Zafar v. Speaker Provincial Assembly and Abdul Qureshi, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 Lahore 401 and 488. The subject was covered by Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1956 and Article 111 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 which was examined by Full Bench of this Court it the case of Mubin-ul-Haq Siddiqi v. Muhammad lqbal, Secretary Provincial Assembly of West Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD' 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 23 with reference to the rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan v. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani and others PLD 1958 SC (Pakistan) 397. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reads as under:- ' "This statement taken by itself is unexceptionable, provided it is clearly understood that any proceedings which can fairly be described as 'internal proceedings' relating to the proper business of the House are wholly outside the corrective jurisdiction of the High Court. The means of correction which are contemplated by a Constitution providing for a form of Parliamentary Government are, in matters of. This kind involving coercion or mala fides, exclusively of a political kind."
It, is, therefore, clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment to the proceedings of the Assembly or its Committees.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that respectfully following the rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court I proceed to dismiss the writ petition in limine.