Congratulations to Pakistan, finally The rule of law has won

[aqeelPK]

Think you are missing the point.

I am asking you, as a person of high principles, if you feel that a person who is involved in multiple court cases is being allowed to become a PM.

This is the same justice system that you are praising.

Think about it.

If multiple court cases are filed against IK in coming days, would you still support him to become PM again? Or you would apply same principle on IK as on shahbaz sharif?

 

[Kaddy]

From what I heard, lotas are controlled by army to bring whosoever they want to power. Hopefully next elections, one party gets majority and no more lotas are needed.

Establishment will not let any party get single majority in national assembly. They are too careful. Didn't give Imran either.

 

[Civil]

I am an Imran supporter so this isn't a great day for me...But the bright side is things followed a democratic path.

Courts were tested, parliament was tested and so far knock on wood Army has not intruded.
No confidence route is actually a big improvement in the relative context.

 

[daytrader]

I am an Imran supporter so this isn't a great day for me...But the bright side is things followed a democratic path.

Courts were tested, parliament was tested and so far knock on wood Army has not intruded.
No confidence route is actually a big improvement in the relative context.

Really so you think courts opening on a Sunday and then 12am with all 5 judges speaks of army neutrality?

 

[Major]

Establishment will not let any party get single majority in national assembly. They are too careful. Didn't give Imran either.

Zardari is part of the eatablishment now and it can be confirmed the way all mnas appreciated his efforts.

Many pti fans with 30% majority think he will bring a 2/3 with no more electables and no atm to fund this.. people are just delusional.

Ppp will be bought back in now as zardari is in good control.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I am an Imran supporter so this isn't a great day for me...But the bright side is things followed a democratic path.

Courts were tested, parliament was tested and so far knock on wood Army has not intruded.
No confidence route is actually a big improvement in the relative context.

I did not want to believe it at first, but this was done by the Army. Only question is did Army do it on orders of US, or on their own.

 

[moghul]

In a history filled with severe miscarriage of laws and violations of Constitution multiple times. Its a rare sight to see rule of law winning back so swiftly in Pakistan. Really commendable work by the judiciary. Such a move was expected by legal experts world over.

Army has remarkably remained stoically quiet and an observer, General Bajwa has displayed true political acumen here.

House trading is the only thing being done as per constitution , nothing else . Pakistan judiciary is ranked 130th in the world for obvious reason . Even prostitutes have some principles , not these judges and courts.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I did not want to believe it at first, but this was done by the Army. Only question is did Army do it on orders of US, or on their own.

No pakistani PM has ever completed 5 years.

Sharif removed by courts.

Imran removed by NCM.

Your establishment is now playing a different game.

 

[Kaddy]

Zardari is part of the eatablishment now and it can be confirmed the way all mnas appreciated his efforts.

Many pti fans with 30% majority think he will bring a 2/3 with no more electables and no atm to fund this.. people are just delusional.

Ppp will be bought back in now as zardari is in good control.

I understand what you are trying to say here but your wording is wrong.

I have also noticed that establishment is very soft on PPP for the last two to three years, but it doesn't mean Zardari is part of establishment now (big lol).

As per my observation, their inclination towards PPP is not because of Zardari, its because of Bilawal. I think they sensing him a serious PM candidate in future.

They may give him that in 2028 or 2033 but again, even if you are a PPP supporter, don't expect 2/3 majority in the near future.

Their 1997 experiment of 2/3 majority didn't have a happy ending. That will be in their minds.

 

[Bewal Express]

[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]
The law has won, 2 random security guards killed Jokhio.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sindh Prosecutor General struck out names of <a href="https://twitter.com/PPP_Org?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PPP_Org</a> MNA Jam Karim & MPA Jam Awais from list of accused for killing Nazim Jokhio. Now only two security guards remained accused. Next time <a href="https://twitter.com/BBhuttoZardari?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BBhuttoZardari</a> should refrain from talking about human rights <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeforNazimJokhio?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeforNazimJokhio</a> <a href="https://t.co/JzmhUcshvC">pic.twitter.com/JzmhUcshvC</a></p>— Mubashir Zaidi (@Xadeejournalist) <a href="https://twitter.com/Xadeejournalist/status/1514205342082772997?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Varun]

I understand what you are trying to say here but your wording is wrong.

I have also noticed that establishment is very soft on PPP for the last two to three years, but it doesn't mean Zardari is part of establishment now (big lol).

As per my observation, their inclination towards PPP is not because of Zardari, its because of Bilawal. I think they sensing him a serious PM candidate in future.

They may give him that in 2028 or 2033 but again, even if you are a PPP supporter, don't expect 2/3 majority in the near future.

Their 1997 experiment of 2/3 majority didn't have a happy ending. That will be in their minds.

Who cares what is in their minds? By making posts like these you are admitting that they are God no matter what the regular people of Pakistan think or vote.

 

[MenInG]

Imran Khan then addressed the judiciary and questioned why the Supreme Court and the Islamabad High Court felt the need to open their courts on Saturday night, hours before he was ousted from the top office.

"My dear judges, my judiciary, I have spent time in jail because of your freedom because I dream that one day the judiciary would stand with the weak people of the society, and not the powerful. I ask the judiciary that when you opened the court in the dead of night ... this nation has known me for 45 years. Have I ever broken the law? When I played cricket, did anyone every accuse me of match fixing?

"During my 25 years of politics, I have never provoked the public against state institutions or the judiciary because my life and death is in Pakistan. I ask you, what crime had I exactly committed that you opened up the courts at midnight?"

DAWN

 

[Shariq7]

Who interprests the constitution in pakistan?

Also, does pakistan has anything like

Article 142 of Indian constitution

Something like this

Definition of Article 142 in Constitution of India

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

I love this clause. No institution should have absolute authority or immunity. However, Article 69 of the Pakistan Constitution rightly or wrongly (mainly wrongly) does not leave room for interpretation.

Check out it's language:

"The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be
called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure."

This language is as plain as it gets. It is not the job of the courts to make law. In my opinion, SC should have asked the parliament to amend this article on the grounds of absolute immunity (at a future date of course). It cannot issue rulings in direct opposition to the constitution.

 

[uberkoen]

Imran Khan then addressed the judiciary and questioned why the Supreme Court and the Islamabad High Court felt the need to open their courts on Saturday night, hours before he was ousted from the top office.

"My dear judges, my judiciary, I have spent time in jail because of your freedom because I dream that one day the judiciary would stand with the weak people of the society, and not the powerful. I ask the judiciary that when you opened the court in the dead of night ... this nation has known me for 45 years. Have I ever broken the law? When I played cricket, did anyone every accuse me of match fixing?

"During my 25 years of politics, I have never provoked the public against state institutions or the judiciary because my life and death is in Pakistan. I ask you, what crime had I exactly committed that you opened up the courts at midnight?"

DAWN

I love this clause. No institution should have absolute authority or immunity. However, Article 69 of the Pakistan Constitution rightly or wrongly (mainly wrongly) does not leave room for interpretation.

Check out it's language:

"The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be
called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure."

This language is as plain as it gets. It is not the job of the courts to make law. In my opinion, SC should have asked the parliament to amend this article on the grounds of absolute immunity (at a future date of course). It cannot issue rulings in direct opposition to the constitution.

Imran Khan: "We will accept and respect whatever verdict the Supreme Court gives"

Also Imran Khan: "Why? Why? why? Let's go out on the streets and create chaos because the supreme court verdict didn't go my way"

 

[Kaddy]

Who cares what is in their minds? By making posts like these you are admitting that they are God no matter what the regular people of Pakistan think or vote.

No doubt. I am actually admitting that.

They are the actual rulers of Pakistan.

 

[Itachi]

I love this clause. No institution should have absolute authority or immunity. However, Article 69 of the Pakistan Constitution rightly or wrongly (mainly wrongly) does not leave room for interpretation.

Check out it's language:

"The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be
called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure."

This language is as plain as it gets. It is not the job of the courts to make law. In my opinion, SC should have asked the parliament to amend this article on the grounds of absolute immunity (at a future date of course). It cannot issue rulings in direct opposition to the constitution.

Since deputy speaker doesn't have the jurisdiction to call off NCM, that doesn't fall in parliamentary action in the first place. So article 69 doesn't apply here.

 

[bones]

Imran Khan: "We will accept and respect whatever verdict the Supreme Court gives"

Also Imran Khan: "Why? Why? why? Let's go out on the streets and create chaos because the supreme court verdict didn't go my way"

Chaos? These are non violent protests. There was no mass call for protests on Sunday but the people came out in their millions all around Pakistan and the world.

Let me ask you how much is it stinging you right now that the masses are behind IK, they would rather endure any difficulties under him, they will accept any of his flaws but they do not under any circumstances want to live under the rule of corruption and criminals.

 

[MenInG]

Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri's move to delay the convening of the National Assembly session to April 22 was challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday, in a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz's (PML-N) Murtaza Javed Abbasi.

The plea deemed the deputy speaker’s actions unconstitutional, and included the April 13 circular notifying of the adjournment.

The PML-N’s application requested that the deputy speaker be directed to immediately convene a session for the election of the speaker of the assembly and to cease Suri from exercising the powers of the speaker.

The secretary of parliamentary affairs and secretary of the assembly have been directed to convene a meeting on April 16.

A day earlier, the assembly had issued a schedule for the election of a speaker, sending letters to all members of the house in this regard.

The election was to be held in the next sitting of the National Assembly on April 16 (Saturday) while nomination papers could be submitted for the slot till April 15 (Friday) at 2 pm with the secretary National Assembly.

The nomination papers could be obtained from the legislative branch of the house.

The election of the speaker would be held under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly 2007.

The seat fell vacant after the resignation of Asad Qaiser who, hours before the Supreme Court’s deadline for the vote of no-confidence motion against former prime minister Imran Khan was to expire, addressed the assembly to announce the decision.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2352514/suris-delaying-of-na-session-to-april-22-challenged-in-ihc

 

[Shariq7]

Since deputy speaker doesn't have the jurisdiction to call off NCM, that doesn't fall in parliamentary action in the first place. So article 69 doesn't apply here.

Interesting! Do you have the parliamentary procedure rules by any chance? I would love to analyze how you got to the conclusion that the deputy speaker does not have jurisdiction in his own parliamentary proceedings.

 

[Shariq7]

Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri's move to delay the convening of the National Assembly session to April 22 was challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday, in a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz's (PML-N) Murtaza Javed Abbasi.

The plea deemed the deputy speaker’s actions unconstitutional, and included the April 13 circular notifying of the adjournment.

The PML-N’s application requested that the deputy speaker be directed to immediately convene a session for the election of the speaker of the assembly and to cease Suri from exercising the powers of the speaker.

The secretary of parliamentary affairs and secretary of the assembly have been directed to convene a meeting on April 16.

A day earlier, the assembly had issued a schedule for the election of a speaker, sending letters to all members of the house in this regard.

The election was to be held in the next sitting of the National Assembly on April 16 (Saturday) while nomination papers could be submitted for the slot till April 15 (Friday) at 2 pm with the secretary National Assembly.

The nomination papers could be obtained from the legislative branch of the house.

The election of the speaker would be held under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly 2007.

The seat fell vacant after the resignation of Asad Qaiser who, hours before the Supreme Court’s deadline for the vote of no-confidence motion against former prime minister Imran Khan was to expire, addressed the assembly to announce the decision.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2352514/suris-delaying-of-na-session-to-april-22-challenged-in-ihc

If you were to argue that the Deputy Speaker could not end the NCM without taking a vote on it, then I might agree with you. But because the proceedings in the parliament have absolute immunity under the constitution, the courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on them. Therefore, SC exceeded its mandate and violated the constitution by hearing the case.

 

[zn426]

The rule of law has won? A man with cases against him in court is sitting in the Prime Minister's chair. Is that what the rule of law looks like?

 

[bones]

The rule of law has won? A man with cases against him in court is sitting in the Prime Minister's chair. Is that what the rule of law looks like?

This man is trying to get his brother who should be locked up back into the country on a diplomatic passport.

You really couldn’t make this up.

 

[Itachi]

Interesting! Do you have the parliamentary procedure rules by any chance? I would love to analyze how you got to the conclusion that the deputy speaker does not have jurisdiction in his own parliamentary proceedings.

Because SC says so.

 

[Shariq7]

Oh okay then.

 

[Major]

Imran khan has been played by zardari

Zardari made sure the pm should be somone imran hated the most and he choose shebaz shareef. He knew imran would never shake his hand and thus imran did an own goal by resigning from NA and even giving punjab....

Democracy won, the opposition rules the govt, while the ex govr is begging for money through online katoras and doing protest on false narratives

 

[MenInG]

Imran khan has been played by zardari

Zardari made sure the pm should be somone imran hated the most and he choose shebaz shareef. He knew imran would never shake his hand and thus imran did an own goal by resigning from NA and even giving punjab....

Democracy won, the opposition rules the govt, while the ex govr is begging for money through online katoras and doing protest on false narratives

The reason Govt is asking people who support it for help is just that - the price of supporting a progressive Pakistan.

This is something Sharif/Bhuttos will never do - can you guess why? They dont need to because there is so much khaya hua paise in their pockets, they dont need money!

 

[Kianig89]

Imran khan has been played by zardari

Zardari made sure the pm should be somone imran hated the most and he choose shebaz shareef. He knew imran would never shake his hand and thus imran did an own goal by resigning from NA and even giving punjab....

Democracy won, the opposition rules the govt, while the ex govr is begging for money through online katoras and doing protest on false narratives

400 million corruption,money laundering charges on current PM also on bail which fantasy you are its a national shame that these corrupt are the rulers of country do we need to remind you about Zardari Surrey Palace French submarines tractors NFc quota of Sindh Rental project BisP......so and so on Swiss Accounts

 

[Kroll]

Eh? What is there to celebrate about the chors coming back? Or are people seriously satisfied with the prospect of the nation being looted again?

 

[moghul]

This man is trying to get his brother who should be locked up back into the country on a diplomatic passport.

You really couldn’t make this up.

Shehbaz can do whatever he wants to. He is the PM, very talented ( in corruption ) beta is CM of Punjab , no opposition in national or provincial government . After Peshawar and Karachi Laksas , first PPP and then MQM have declined to join the government , so he can make everyone of his family/friend a minister.

Maujan ee Maujan .

 

[uberkoen]

Eh? What is there to celebrate about the chors coming back? Or are people seriously satisfied with the prospect of the nation being looted again?

The celebration is about the fact that democracy has prevailed and constitution has proven supreme. Some people tried to jeopardize our democracy and out constitution to try and illegally stay in power. They have been justly thrown out.

We should celebrate that our country, our democracy and our legal system is a slave to no one.

 

[uberkoen]

The reason Govt is asking people who support it for help is just that - the price of supporting a progressive Pakistan.

This is something Sharif/Bhuttos will never do - can you guess why? They dont need to because there is so much khaya hua paise in their pockets, they dont need money!

Let's not refer to Imran Khan's version of Pakistan as a 'progressive' Pakistan. We all know that's not true.

 

[Hasan]

Shahbaz has failed to form a cabinet and Zardari is quietly extracting his revenge on PML - N/S. No one wants to be part of this government. How the tables have turned.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2353006/ppp-may-not-accept-ministries-in-new-cabinet

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Let's not refer to Imran Khan's version of Pakistan as a 'progressive' Pakistan. We all know that's not true.

Is that why IK has been criticised for investing funds in making mountain areas of Pakistan a tourist attraction?

 

[IMMY69]

The celebration is about the fact that democracy has prevailed and constitution has proven supreme. Some people tried to jeopardize our democracy and out constitution to try and illegally stay in power. They have been justly thrown out.

We should celebrate that our country, our democracy and our legal system is a slave to no one.

and yet in since 2018 it was all about the "selected PM"...

You guys can't even stick to the same narrative

 

[uberkoen]

Is that why IK has been criticised for investing funds in making mountain areas of Pakistan a tourist attraction?

Not sure how the two are related

 

[uberkoen]

and yet in since 2018 it was all about the "selected PM"...

You guys can't even stick to the same narrative

Indeed. The selective PM has been ousted. Democracy and law has prevailed. The narrative hasn't changed at all.

 

[Hasan]

Indeed. The selective PM has been ousted. Democracy and law has prevailed. The narrative hasn't changed at all.

Democracy but PDM partners want out. True democracy will come when the public next votes and I can assure you that will be very soon.

 

[Hasan]

Zardari has already gone into GL mode. Shahbaz has been betrayed. Zardari and MQM very troubled by Karachi jalsa.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1685342/ppp-invites-applications-for-award-of-party-tickets

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not sure how the two are related

No surprise.

 

[silentkiller187]

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, while hearing a presidential reference seeking its interpretation of Article 63-A on Monday, questioned why the Supreme Court should deal with political matters when its decisions are criticised at gatherings of "10 to 15,000 people".

The chief justice's comments come days after recently ousted prime minister Imran Khan publicly asked the judiciary to explain why it felt the need to open its doors at midnight on April 9, hours before he was ousted from the Prime Minister's Office via a successful no-confidence motion against him in the National Assembly.

With the deadline set by the Supreme Court to hold voting on the no-trust move fast approaching after a marathon NA session, the apex court and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had opened their doors beyond their notified timings. The vote was eventually held and saw Khan voted out from the top office.

In what was his first public address since losing his government, Khan directly addressed the judiciary, and asked: "My dear judges, my judiciary, I have spent time in jail because of your freedom because I dream that one day the judiciary would stand with the weak people of the society, and not the powerful.

"I ask you, what crime had I exactly committed that you opened up the courts at midnight?"

The PTI chairman repeated the question at his Karachi rally as well on Saturday.

The chief justice, without naming anyone in particular, said today that the apex court should be respected. "The court fulfills its constitutional responsibilities. National leaders should defend court decisions.

"We are cursed for doing our jobs and protecting the Constitution. Why should the court get involved in your political matters?" he said while addressing Islamabad Advocate General Niazullah Khan Niazi.

He made the remarks during the hearing of the reference filed by the PTI government before its ouster. Headed by CJP Bandial, a five-member bench including Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail is hearing the reference.

Request to adjourn hearing dismissed
At the outset of the hearing today, Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Amir Khan requested the apex court to adjourn the hearing in the wake of former attorney general Khalid Jawed Khan's resignation.

However, Justice Bandial dismissed his request and said that the attorney general's arguments had been completed. "In my opinion, we should keep hearing the presidential reference," he said.

Consequently, PTI counsel Babar Awan urged the court to issue notices on party chairman Imran Khan's petition, which was moved in SC earlier seeking a lifetime ban on defecting lawmakers.

Justice Bandial replied that the court was already hearing a case related to the matter highlighted in Khan's petition.

"All the respondents are here too. This is a case of constitutional debate," the CJP said, reiterating that the court would continue hearing the presidential reference.

Separately, Islamabad Advocate General Niazullah Khan Niazi told the court that he endorsed the former attorney general's arguments.

"The Supreme Court has given its ruling in the Panama verdict," he recalled. "The decision of the court is important [for] lifetime disqualification."

Niazi argued that a vote is a trust that a political party gives to an MNA. "Conscience can't be sold for money," he said, adding that lawmakers could be forced to pass anti-national legislation in return for money.

He said that the situation in Punjab was in front of everyone and "all the stakeholders are looking at the court."

The advocate general pointed out that dissident lawmakers could not even go out in public today.

'Matter should be discussed in parliament'
Meanwhile, Justice Mandokhail observed that some people were in favour of lawmakers being allowed to dissent while others were against it.

"The parliament has not clarified about lifetime disqualification," the judge stated and then wondered if the parliament had deliberately not mentioned it or if it was an oversight.

Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the parliament was still in existence, adding that the Article should perhaps be discussed in the house. "Why are you bringing this matter to the court?"

At this, Niazi said that the court was responsible for interpreting the Constitution. "Votes are being sold even after Senate elections," he added.

Justice Mandokhail, however, interjected that the parliament should be allowed to make amendments itself.

Violation of 63-A not 'treason'
Justice Bandial observed that political parties were one of the founding blocks of parliamentary democracy and they have been given protection in four circumstances under Article 63-A.

The CJP recalled that General Ziaul Haq had removed the clause of restriction on dissenting from party lines from the Constitution.

"Amendments to the Constitution were made in 1998 when decisions on horse-trading were taken," he said. "In 2010, under the 18th Amendment, Article 63-A was included."

Justice Bandial pointed out that violating the Constitution was not a small matter.

"Many people violate the Constitution and then have Article 6, which is related to treason, [applied to them]," he said, adding that violating Article 63 cannot be turned into a case of treason.

According to the presidential reference, Justice Bandial continued, Article 62(1) — which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be "sadiq and ameen" (honest and righteous) — should be applicable to dissident lawmakers.

The court would decide the consequences of violating the Constitution, whether the MNA concerned leaves [the party] or pays a price, the CJP said.

However, the Islamabad AG said that dissenting from party policies meant deviating from the oath of the parliament.

But Justice Mandokhail asked that if lifetime disqualification came under Article 63-A, what would be the significance of Article 95 then.

"The matter of Article 95 is not in front of the court right now," Niazi replied.

Justice Mandokhail then asked if the court could include the clause of lifetime disqualification itself.

"The court has already decided on lifetime disqualification while interpreting Article 62(1)(f)," Islamabad AG Niazi said as he completed his arguments.

PTI counsel requests time
Meanwhile, PTI counsel Babar Awan requested the court to review the party's separate petition related to dissident lawmakers. "The petition has nothing to do with memogate," he said, referring to the "threat letter" allegedly containing details of a foreign conspiracy to oust former premier Khan.

"The gate will have to be closed now," Justice Mandokhail remarked.

Awan replied that the court previously had a chance to do that but it was wasted.

Justice Bandial rejected the PTI counsel's request.

Continuing his arguments, Awan said that it had been a week that the country was functioning without a federal cabinet. "For the past eight days, we have not had a government.

"There's no attorney general or law minister," Awan said. "Who will argue on behalf of the government?"

CJP Bandial asked Awan if he would support the attorney general's arguments.

Awan replied that he would not support the arguments "at any cost".

"Khalid Javed Khan had played tricks during his arguments," he said, requesting the court to grant him time till tomorrow to present his arguments.

Presidential reference on Article 63-A
Before its ouster, the PTI government had filed a presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A, asking the top court about the "legal status of the vote of party members when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money".

The presidential reference was filed under Article 186 which is related to the advisory jurisdiction of the SC.

In the reference, President Dr Arif Alvi also asked the apex court whether a member who "engages in constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible act of defection" could claim the right to have his vote counted and given equal weightage or if there was a constitutional restriction to exclude such "tainted" votes.

He also asked the court to elaborate whether a parliamentarian, who had been declared to have committed defection, would be disqualified for life. It cautioned that unless horse-trading is eliminated, "a truly democratic polity shall forever remain an unfilled distant dream and ambition".

"Owing to the weak interpretation of Article 63-A entailing no prolonged disqualification, such members first enrich themselves and then come back to remain available to the highest bidder in the next round perpetuating this cancer."

The reference had been filed at a time when the then-opposition claimed the support of several dissident PTI lawmakers ahead of voting on the no-confidence resolution against then-prime minister Khan.

Article 63-A
According to Article 63-A of the Constitution, a parliamentarian can be disqualified on grounds of defection if he "votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the parliamentary party to which he belongs, in relation to election of the prime minister or chief minister; or a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or a money bill or a Constitution (amendment) bill".

The article says that the party head has to declare in writing that the MNA concerned has defected but before making the declaration, the party head will "provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him".

After giving the member a chance to explain their reasons, the party head will forward the declaration to the speaker, who will forward it to the chief election commissioner (CEC). The CEC will then have 30 days to confirm the declaration. If confirmed by the CEC, the member "shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant".

https://www.dawn.com/news/1685611/c...-when-its-decisions-are-criticised-at-rallies

 

[daytrader]

Govt asked to take action against ‘smear social media campaign’
Legal fraternity says the party now resorting to derogatory and contemptuous remarks against judges in public

ISLAMABAD:
The bar associations across the country have strongly condemned the “smear social media campaign” against the superior judiciary and demanded of the government to take notice of it under the cyber laws.

In a joint statement, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) along with the legal fraternity noted that the campaign had been launched at the behest of the leadership of a political party which had just lost majority in parliament through a democratic process.

The statement maintained that the party was now resorting to pass derogatory and contemptuous remarks against the judges in public rallies and congregations.

“Without any stretch of imagination, it is obvious that the purpose of said smear campaign is to pressurize the judiciary so as to achieve unconstitutional and undemocratic agendas and to further polarize the society,” the statement said.

“The entire legal fraternity has its full confidence over the decisions of the apex courts, fully endorsed the same and shall not allow anyone to twist arms against the institutions,” it added.

Referring to PTI chairman Imran Khan’s remarks about the opening of courts in the dark of night at the time of his ouster, the bar associations observed that they fully endorsed and welcomed the initiative.

“It prevented and failed all the likely unconstitutional and unlawful conspiracies and deterred all the undemocratic and unconstitutional elements, eyeing to take advantage of political turmoil,” the statement said.

“However, the way Mr. Imran Khan is accusing the courts, it appears that he and his party was on the collision course with state institutions and wanted to indulge in something extra-constitutional.”

While condemning the campaign, SCBA Secretary Waseem Mumtaz Malik stated that no one had right to malign the dignity of judges for petty political gains. “Anyone can express his/her disagreement with judgment but no one is free to harm the respect of judges.”

He said the legal fraternity reserved the right to take punitive against the wrongdoers if such malicious social media propaganda does not end.

“Let no one be mistaken, the legal fraternity, as per its erstwhile principles, is firmly standing with its parent institution i.e. (the judiciary) and shall continue its struggle for upholding rule of law, independence of so as to curb this menace.”

The bar associations urged the government to take action against the campaign under the cyber laws.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2353287/govt-asked-to-take-action-against-smear-social-media-campaign

 

[daytrader]

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, while hearing a presidential reference seeking its interpretation of Article 63-A on Monday, questioned why the Supreme Court should deal with political matters when its decisions are criticised at gatherings of "10 to 15,000 people".

This is hilarious, CJP needs an updated eye prescription

 

[Shariq7]

This is hilarious, CJP needs an updated eye prescription

I agree, he is having trouble reading the constitution too.

 

[MenInG]

Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah said on Friday that the courts have given a clear message, and no one will be allowed to violate the Constitution.

Justice Minallah's remark came as he heard the case regarding the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) harassment of journalists. Journalist Arshed Sharif and his counsel were also present in the court.

During the hearing the IHC CJ questioned the intrigue surrounding the events of the night of April 9 when the courts were reported to have opened at night, out of their usual schedule.

Referring to an anchorperson's tv show that he said questioned the high court's unusual functioning on April 9, he questioned whether the idea behind building this narrative was motivated by political reasoning.

Justice Minallah said he was sitting at home when the journalist’s channel was reporting that the IHC chief justice had reached the court and that the court had been opened.

“Do not make these statements for your own benefit,” the chief justice warned.

He further maintained that a prisoner van had been called to the court at the time because protestors had gathered outside the court. "Only the lights of the IHC building had been turned on. What was the problem with that?" he asked.

Justice Minallah further asked whether the journalist wanted the court to be closed and no petition to be heard.

“This court does not believe in contempt of court. This court has heard many cases after hours because it considers that its responsibility,” the CJ said, adding that the journalist was expressing doubts about the court.

He stated that no one will be allowed to violate the Constitution and that if there was a constitutional crisis or a petition was filed by an oppressed section then the court will open even at 3 am if it has to.

“Journalists were shot at in broad daylight and there was no investigation,” he said, questioning if the journalist had done any programmes on its channel for missing persons or Baloch students.

The journalist replied that "there are instructions on not to run programmes regarding missing persons and that such news also led to threats".

CJ Minallah stated that a policy created in 2019 allowed people to file a petition at any time, adding that people working on the journalist’s news channel may be afraid, but the court feared no one except God.

The journalist’s lawyer claimed that his family had been harassed to which FIA officials said that there was no truth to the allegations, and they had not taken any action or conducted any inquiries.

A day earlier, the IHC had instructed the FIA and capital police to stop harassing the private news channel’s anchorperson and any other journalist.

The court order instructed the FIA's director general and Islamabad inspector general of police (IGP) to nominate their authorised representatives to appear before the court on Friday (today) at 10:30 am.

The order stated that the journalist’s counsel had been told to approach the court as he was being harassed and that the counsel had been unable to establish contact with Sharif.

It furthered that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the FIA had “malafidely and illegally detained the petitioner”.

Express Tribune

 

[cric_man]

Courts were opened @ 10.30 to push Hamza Shahabaz's case and then the Gov of Punjab was not allowed to file an appeal against it.

Kangaroo courts.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n2PfbBqD054" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[daytrader]

Imran urges SC to take action against ‘horse-trading’
Former PM demands early elections under impartial election commission

Former prime minister and PTI chairman Imran Khan has accused the chief election commissioner of being biased, saying that the Supreme Court should take action against ‘horse-trading’.

“What example are we setting for our coming generation that public representatives were sold like goats and sheeps,” Imran said in an interview with a private TV channel on Tuesday.

The former PM also criticised the ECP’s decision to reject the petitions filed by the PTI for the disqualification of PPP Senator Yousaf Raza Gilani and his son MPA Ali Haider Gilani over allegations of electoral misconduct.

“ECP did not take any action against Yousuf Raza Gillani… and we don’t have high expectations that it would do anything fair,” he remarked.

Imran said he believed if the apex court did not take action against ‘horse-trading’ then it would put the country’s future at stake.

Last week, CEC Sikandar Sultan Raja had said that facts about the Yousaf Raza Gillani case were not presented properly. He highlighted that the case was heard 20 times and adjourned 12 times.

Also read: SC judge observes defectors could 'resign honourably'

The ECP ruled that there was no direct evidence against the senator. However, it ordered the district election commissioner to register a case of corrupt practices (Section 167) and bribery (Section 168) under Elections Act, 2017, against his son Ali Haider Gilani, along with PTI MNAs Captain (retd) Jamil Ahmed and Fahim Khan.

Imran, in today’s interview, further said that PTI didn’t have confidence in the incumbent CEC and his party’s only demand was that early elections should be held under an impartial electoral body.

He said those who criticised his government of being “selected and incompetent” were running away from elections.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2355277/imran-urges-sc-to-take-action-against-horse-trading

 

[Abstraction1]

PDM supporters are insufferable.

How can someone quote the "Rule of Law" and blatantly ignore the countless of open cases against the incumbent PDM members and the fact their PM is out on bail and a history of court cases against him.

 

[silentkiller187]

The Supreme Court of Pakistan after consultations between 12 judges of the top court took suo moto notice of the ruling of the deputy speaker that rejected the no-confidence motion against then prime minister Imran Khan resulting in the dissolution of the National Assembly, said Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Monday.

During the hearing of the case seeking interpretation of Article 63-A, the chief justice said all the judges agreed that it was a constitutional matter that needed to be taken up by the court.

Justice Bandial said the top court does not take notices on whims and wishes, adding that the notice was taken because it was a constitutional matter.

The CJ was alluding to the ruling by Qasim Suri that had rejected the no-confidence motion against then prime minister Imran Khan citing a violation of Article 5. Imran used that ruling to dissolve the assembly. However, the SC struck down the ruling and restored the assembly and directed the speaker to hold voting on the vote of no-confidence.

During the hearing, CJ Bandial said the court wanted to give its decision on Article 63-A without delay. “The interpretation of Article 63-A was necessary for [strengthening] the parliamentary democracy,” the judge said, adding that the protection of the Constitution was the duty of this court.

Read Full text of Supreme Court verdict on NA deputy speaker's ruling

Justice Ijazul Ahsan said the reference only pertained to the interpretation of the said article. “The interpretation is implanted in the centre or the province that does not concern this court,” he added. “The decision of the top court will be binding to all the parties,” he added.

PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan sought a delay in the hearing as he would return to Pakistan on May 15, but the bench asked him to return early as the case could not be delayed for that long.

The court said it will also listen to Azhar Siddique, the PTI counsel, after Babar Awan. Awan urged the court to read articles 62 and 63 together. The PTI leader said he would assist the court in the constitutional debate regarding the case. The additional attorney general said that the attorney general also wanted to present his arguments in the case.

During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said the Constitution did not lay down the period of disqualification as a result of the violation of Article 63-A but the court could specify that. Babar Awan said the presidential reference was filed against 26 MNAs and 24 MPAs who allegedly switched loyalties.

CJ Bandial addressed PTI lawyer Babar Awan and said the court wanted to mention the “shortcoming” of his client. Justice Bandial said if the court’s decision on Senate elections was not complied with then his client should have approached the court for its implementation. “The court’s decisions are not implemented by protesting in front of the election commission or somewhere else,” he said, adding that only the courts could be approached for the implementation of their decisions.

Justice Bandial said how could the court announce a verdict on something before its occurrence. He added that the top court limited the scope of suo moto notice. “We recently decided that the suo moto powers should be used with extreme caution,” he added.

The judiciary intervenes when the government fails to deliver, Justice Bandial said as he referred to the Pakistan Steel Mills case. “If someone has a complaint [about courts] then they should approach the courts,” he added.

Justice Bandial also referred to the Reko Diq case, saying the evidence of corruption submitted in the SC was not shared with the International Court of Arbitration.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan said the judiciary could not allow political parties to malign it when verdicts are not favourable. He added the courts rule in compliance with the Constitution and their conscience.

The case was adjourned till 11:30 am on Tuesday.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/235577...-endorsed-taking-suo-moto-on-suris-ruling-cjp

 

[MenInG]

PTI chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan on Tuesday expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court for saving the nation from further "deterioration of its moral standards", which he said were compromised by his political rivals in a bid to topple his government under a US-orchestrated conspiracy.

The statement from the ex-premier came hours after the top court announced its decision on a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution which is related to the status of defecting lawmakers, saying the votes of defecting legislators will not be counted.

The verdict by the larger bench of the apex court was a 3-2 split decision, with a majority of the judges not allowing lawmakers to vote against party line in four instances outlined under Article 63-A. The verdict went on to say that defections were "one of the most pernicious ways" in which political parties could be destabilised, noting that they could also delegitimise parliamentary democracy.

"Thank God, the Supreme Court rejected the votes of lawmakers who were committing betrayal with their people, the country, and the Constitution," Imran told his audience in a public meeting in Attock today.

While hailing the decision, Imran also urged the court to seek the record of corruption cases of the Sharif family and conduct day-to-day hearings on the cases.

He said the incumbent government had deliberately "destroyed" institutions such as the Federal Investigation Agency in order to render them ineffective in probing corruption cases.

Imran also appealed to the Supreme Court to order an inquiry into the recent death of FIA officer Dr Mohammad Rizwan, who died of an alleged cardiac arrest. In his speeches over the past week, Imran had raised suspicions of foul play regarding the nature of Dr Rizwan's death.

The PTI chief's appreciation of the top court stands in contrast to his public criticism of the judiciary over the past few weeks in his political power shows where he had asked why the courts opened their doors at midnight prior to his ouster.


'Only demand is immediate elections'

The ex-premier lamented that Shehbaz and his son would have been convicted a year ago, but added it could not happen due to the weak justice system in the country.

"We just want one thing and that is immediate elections. We do not accept this America-backed government," he told the crowd.

Imran said he was "carefully planning" the date of his upcoming Islamabad march and would unveil it in days to come.

He also sought a promise from rally attendants that in future elections they would not vote for leaders whose properties and assets were stashed abroad.

The PTI chief also "congratulated" the Khyber Pakhtonkhwa for having just one "turncoat" in the entire province. He said the PTI will never forgive those who defected to other parties "for the sake of money".

Lashing out at the current government, Imran reiterated that he had signed an agreement with Russia to procure oil and wheat at 30 per cent discount. However, he alleged that "the current government revoked all those agreements right after coming to power."

'No provision to be neutral'
He said there were two kinds of people in the country: "one, who are trying to fix the problems faced by the country, and the others others who have been looting the country for 30 years".

"Allah has asked us to choose between the two and he has not allowed us to be neutral here."

He predicted the government will now "hastily approach" the United States for help and seek money on the pretext that Imran will come to power if the amount was not provided.

The former PM further said that Asif Ali Zardari was "enjoying" the current political situation whereas Shehbaz was "struggling" as the PPP had control of Sindh alongside a share in the federal government.

DAWN

 

[Mamoon]

So will Youth praise SC now and eat their words than they are corrupt? )

 

[Shariq7]

So will Youth praise SC now and eat their words than they are corrupt? )

SC opinions are a good way to determine the current stance of the top generals. Generally, it is not overly concerned about jurisdiction or constitution, etc. As goes the army, so goes the SC.

 

[Bewal Express]

So will Youth praise SC now and eat their words than they are corrupt? )

No, the SC is a disgrace. They have felt the wrath of the public and have given a judgement that should have been given 6 weeks ago. We were stable and today we are in a fully blown crisis led by clown who knows less about the exchange rate than you do. On the bright side SS got to go to London, and also renovate a swimming pool)

 

[Kriketer]

SC already regretting opening up the court midnight. They secretly seem to be realizng they made a huge blunder by siding with stooges who Pakistanis don't support. They can clearly sense landslide victory of PTI in coming elections. Now see how other corrupt will start siding with PTI to save themselves embarasment but iA Imran Khan ll wipe the floor from each bhikao ghooskhor by eventually rotting them behind bars. We all can read it that PDM chuurs are done and dusted, totally finished. They are clueless and will be remembered as huge laughing stock.

 

[Stewie]

almost everybody blundered through this whole thing.. the nation's confidence in the government's institutions has been shattered ..

pakistanis are now seeing how they get taken for a ride by all the crook politicians, the judiciary, the army establishment, etc. IK showed them the true faces of all the ills of our country and what has been holding us back all these years.

Ye Bajwa Shajwa, etc will be gone soon, IK will come back with majority and all these crooks will be once again seen running for their lives to UK, etc.

 

[DRsohail]

No, the SC is a disgrace. They have felt the wrath of the public and have given a judgement that should have been given 6 weeks ago. We were stable and today we are in a fully blown crisis led by clown who knows less about the exchange rate than you do. On the bright side SS got to go to London, and also renovate a swimming pool)

Crooks have said that they want to stay in power till August next year.hqhahha

 

[Xoib]

SC opinions are a good way to determine the current stance of the top generals. Generally, it is not overly concerned about jurisdiction or constitution, etc. As goes the army, so goes the SC.

Exactly this is not SC making the decision its the fauj which is realising the blunders they made.

 

[daytrader]

Judiciary can’t address all issues, political leaders should hold dialogue: CJP
Judges are ready and willing to defend Constitution from any and all transgressions, says CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial Friday said that upholding the supremacy of the Constitution was not the responsibility of the judiciary only but also of other organs of the state, stakeholders in the justice system and the people of Pakistan.

Addressing the inaugural session of a two-day 9th International Judicial Conference on the role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law and upholding the supremacy of Constitution at the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice said that judges were ready and willing to defend the Constitution from any and all transgressions. “The judiciary is conscious that it can dispense justice based on the principle of the rule of law only by giving persistent sanctity and respect to the Constitution,” he added.

The Supreme Court, he maintained, has delivered landmark judgments to reinforce other dimensions of the rule of law and in this respect it has come a long way to become a champion for the cause of democracy in the country. Recently, he added, the court had to intervene after the president ordered the dissolution of the National Assembly in April on the advice of the-then prime minister. “The court found the dissolution to be unconstitutional and ordered that the National Assembly be restored for the formation of a parliamentary government in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution,” he said, adding that it was because the Constitution bars the dissolution of the National Assembly during the pendency of a no-confidence motion against the prime minister.

“As a result of this decision, the detailed reasons for which were given in the case of Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 574), the country witnessed, for the first time since 1973 when our present Constitution was enacted, a peaceful transition of executive power within one term of the National Assembly,” he observed.

Subsequently, he added, the then deputy speaker of the Punjab Assembly issued a ruling contrary to the provisions of the Constitution on July 22 and the court again intervened to render a correct interpretation of the Constitution. “Nevertheless, regardless of the efforts of the court to strengthen democracy in the country, progress can only be made if all political parties come together to follow the established democratic practices and perform their respective roles in the parliament as specified under the Constitution,” he added.

The Chief Justice said, “A purely political impasse does not have legal solutions but it can only be resolved through dialogue among political leaders and their parties. The judiciary has no role in breaking a political deadlock as with other citizens it is our sincere hope that the political leadership of the country shall take necessary corrective action and confidence building measures with public and national interest as their foremost consideration.”

“In the wake of recent floods which have ravaged around one-third of the country and displaced millions of people, most of whom already belong to vulnerable segments of society, the decision of the court is a wake-up call to the legislature and executive to take immediate action to mitigate the pernicious effects of climate change on the people,” the Chief Justice said.

Addressing the conference, Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah said that judges in the past, as an institution, had sided with usurpers that were all-powerful and decided against them only mostly when they had fallen out of favour or walked into the sunset. “We all believe that we abide by the oath we take every day while in office. But today we have to evaluate how a bystander might perceive and evaluate our success in upholding the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution,” he observed.

The IHC Chief Justice said that they had sent an elected prime minister to the gallows and “it is ironic that we don’t accept the judgment as a precedent.” He said that the disqualification of chosen representatives under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution had raised questions but such a high standard of scrutiny had never been applied to un-elected usurpers and other public office holders.

“We decided Asma Jillani, Asghar Khan and Dharna cases wherein we explained that representative democracy was the foundation of the scheme of our Constitution, while reiterating and emphasising that under provisions of the Constitution, legal authority and legitimacy flows from the people and their representatives and not from un-elected and unrepresentative institutions,” he elaborated.

“History will judge us for how we refused to sit in judgment over those who trampled upon the Constitution. We must hope and resolve that the manner in which we discharge our responsibilities is such that we redeem ourselves and rise to the expectations that framers who scripted the Constitution had from the judiciary, when they declared the judiciary to be an independent pillar of the state and endowed it with the responsibility to uphold and enforce the social contract between the citizen and the state,” he maintained.

He said, “The independence of judiciary that we jealously guard is for the benefit of the average citizen that relies on us to uphold the promise of legal equality made to them by the Constitution against an all-powerful state and elites that control the state. When we exercise public authority to uphold our dignity, we must remember that the power is meant to serve public interest and not our own.” The session was also addressed by Chief Justices of the Federal Shariat Court, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan.

DAWN

 

[daytrader]

JCP TO DECIDE ON ELEVATION OF JUDGES TO APEX COURT ON OCTOBER 24

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice (CJ) Umar Atta Bandial has summoned a session of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on October 24, for the appointment of four new judges to the apex court, ARY News reported.

According to details, the CJ has summoned the JCP session focused on the appointment of new judges for the vacant Supreme Court bench seats.

Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC) Athar Minallah is among the four judges nominated for the Supreme Court.

Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Justice Shahid Waheed, Sindh High Court’s (SHC) Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shafi Siddiqui are also nominated for the Supreme Court bench.

Four offices of Supreme Court judges fell vacant after the retirement of Justice Mushir Alam, former chief justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Maqbool Baqar and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah will reach superannuation next August.

In June, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan failed to reach a consensus on the appointment of seven judges in the Sindh High Court (SHC), said sources.

The meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial ended after the commission failed to reach a consensus.

ARY