1-10 Application update Bhagat Singh

The Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, a movement launched by the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, had filed the petition against a move by authorities to rename the roundabout.
Zahid Butt, a local trader who filed the petition on behalf of the organisation, claimed that RAW, India's external intelligence agency had funded the Bhagat Singh Foundation to raise the issue.
He claimed the Foundation lobbied the Dilkash Lahore Committee that recommended the renaming of the roundabout.
Senior JuD leader Maulana Amir Hamza, who heads the Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, has said the group will not allow places to be named after Hindus, Sikhs or Christians.
"Pakistan is a Muslim country and such ideas cannot be appreciated," he said recently.
The JuD wrote a strongly worded letter to district administration chief Noorul Amin Mengal and other government officials, warning them not to rename the roundabout after a "Hindu freedom fighter".
The Dilkash Lahore Committee had rejected all objections and asked authorities to notify the new name for the roundabout without delay.
In a related development, civil society activists have filed two applications in the Lahore High Court, asking it to make them parties to the case challenging the renaming of the roundabout.
Activists Taimur Rehman and Saeeda Diep filed the applications in the Lahore High Court yesterday through lawyer Yasser Latif Hamdani to support the renaming of the chowk after Bhagat Singh.

These applications were accepted.

Bhagat Singh Application 1-10 before Lahore High Court

The 1-10 application that LHC's writ branch has frivolously stopped from getting fixed tomorrow with the main case. 

BEFORE THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

CM___/2012

In

WP28446/2012

In re:

                                           Tahreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool versus CDGL etc

Diep Saeeda, wife of ___________,  resident of __________________________________                                                                                                            ……………………APPLICANT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF MS. DIEP SAEEDA TO BE IMPLEADED AS A PARTY IN THE PROCEEDINGS

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That titled writ petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.
2. That the Applicant is a renowned peace and social activist who is filing the present application as a concerned resident of Lahore and a citizen of Pakistan and is both a necessary and a proper party because the issue affects all residents of Lahore and also citizens of Pakistan, as matters germane to the ideology and patriotism are involved, and because the Applicant wants to place on record certain important facts regarding the issue under litigation.
3. That the issue pertains to the renaming of Shadman Chowk as Bhagat Singh Chowk after Bhagat Singh, a renowned freedom fighter, who was hanged after a trial by the British authorities on 23 March, 1931. That a frivolous impression has been created by the Petitioner organization in the present case that the decision to rename the Shadman Chowk after the name of a great freedom fighter is somehow a conspiracy against Pakistan, whereas contrary to this claim, it is the position of the present Applicant that the renaming of Shadman Chowk after Bhagat Singh, a son of the soil, is a supreme act of patriotism.
4. That the Applicant submits that Pakistan is a Muslim majority country where all of us respect and cherish the Holy Prophet (PBUH). It is submitted that the petitioner organization, the objective of which is to safeguard the honour of our Holy Prophet (PBUH), has no locus standi in the present matter as Bhagat Singh, the freedom fighter, was known to hold no animosity towards Islam or our Holy Prophet (PBUH) and for the implication to contrary, the Petitioner may be put to strict proof by this Honourable Court. It is submitted that Bhagat Singh was a non-communal freedom fighter who stood for the independence of the subcontinent from British imperialism for all people of the subcontinent including Muslims.  Some of the finest Islamic scholars of the time including Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Obaidullah Sindhi and Zafar Ali Khan supported Bhagat Singh’s valiant struggle against the British rule. Many of Bhagat Singh’s closest associates were Muslims including Syed Haider Raza and even Bhagat Singh’s counsel was a Muslim, Asaf Ali, not to mention that Quaid-e-Azam  Muhammad Ali Jinnah also staunchly supported Bhagat Singh. Therefore on this ground of locus standi of the Petitioner organization alone the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. That the Applicant wants to place on record that Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the loudest voices in support of Bhagat Singh in all of India, even appearing as a witness for the defence in the case against Bhagat Singh pertaining to the cracker bombs in the Indian Legislative Assembly.  It is further submitted that the Quaid-e-Azam on September 12 and September 14, 1929 delivered a scathing speech against the British Government and in particular the Punjab Government for its treatment of Bhagat Singh. It is submitted that the Quaid-e-Azam fully sympathized with the reasons and motivations behind Bhagat Singh’s actions and called him a patriot and man with a soul. This speech is part of the record of the collected works of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It is submitted that after the Quaid’s brilliant oratory in support of Bhagat Singh, the question of renaming the chowk after Bhagat Singh being against the ideology of Pakistan does not arise.
6. That it may be pointed out that Bhagat Singh, though born in a Sikh family, had himself transcended community and was a revolutionary patriot.  It is submitted that Bhagat Singh was a staunch critic of communal politics of all kinds and was considered an opponent of the Congress Party. It is further submitted that Bhagat Singh contributions to the cause of freedom for all people of this region, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and others are made of sterling stuff and to appropriate him to one community or one nation of this subcontinent is unfortunate. It is submitted that Bhagat Singh was a son of the soil, a revolutionary and a freedom fighter who was from this region and who was hanged here, which is why Pakistan has a greater claim to Bhagat Singh than India.
7. That the Applicant is also incensed at the Petitioner’s suggestion that the Shadman Chowk be renamed after Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, who in his writings roundly abused and attacked Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, using language such as “quisling” and “traitor”. While it is true that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali came up with the name Pakistan but it is well known that Rehmat Ali distanced himself from the country that was founded at midnight of 14^th and        15^th of August, 1947, choosing instead to live out the rest of his life in Cambridge England and writing abusive tomes against Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League.
8. That CDGL’s decision to rename the chowk after Bhagat Singh is a case of legitimate exercise of executive authority which cannot be impugned as it is an executive decision and is certainly not anti-Pakistan or anti-Islam by any stretch of imagination.
9. That it is in interest of justice to implead the Applicant as a party to the present proceedings.

WHEREFORE it is prayed that this Honourable Court impleads the Applicant as both a necessary and proper party to the aforesaid writ petition.

                                                                                                            APPLICANT

through

                       (YASSER LATIF HAMDANI)

ADVOCATE HIGH COURT                                                    ADVOCATE HIGH COURT

PLH 44363                                                                                     PLH 42545

Religion, law and Bhagat Singh

When the East India Company first came to India in 1601, it claimed — through the principle of extraterritoriality — to be governed by its own laws, rejecting lex loci or the local laws of the Mughal Empire and its feudatories. Accordingly, the earliest charters empowered the East India Company to draw up reasonable laws in consonance with the principles of English common law. The charter of 1726 applied the laws of England, in entirety, directly to the East India Company’s holdings in India, namely the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, and all their residents. English law was applied in these towns not just to the English settlers and traders but all communities, castes and people residing within the boundaries of these towns, without any distinction.