Supreme Court bars Nawaz Sharif from heading PML-N

[Syed1]

An individual disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 cannot serve as party head, said a three-judge Supreme Court (SC) bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar in a verdict on the petitions challenging the controversial Elections Act 2017.

The passage of the Elections Act 2017 bulldozed through the Upper and Lower houses last year paved the way for Nawaz Sharif to resume his position as PML-N chief following his disqualification from public office.

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), Awami Muslim League, PPP and others petitioned the apex court against the Elections Act 2017.

The CJP, while reading out the verdict in Courtroom 1, said that a person who is disqualified under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution is not eligible to sign on any document needed to nominate someone to the National Assembly or Senate.

Former Election Commission of Pakistan secretary, Kanwar Muhammad Dilshad, while speaking to DawnNews, said that the verdict will not affect the PML-N's registration as a party. However, decisions taken by Nawaz Sharif will be nullified, including tickets issued by him for the Senate elections. He added that a new schedule will have to be announced for Senate polls.

With the judgement, it is possible that the Senate elections scheduled for March 3 will have to be postponed.

The detailed judgement is awaited.

During the course of Wednesday's hearing, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Rana Waqar told the SC that the Constitution provides every citizen with the right to join or form a political party.

Waqar referred to Article 17 of the Constitution that concerns "freedom of association" and said that the second clause of the article specifically gives citizens the right to form or join a political party.

Justice Nisar, however, said that in Pakistan's political setup, political parties are personality driven. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan seconded the CJP's statement, saying that political parties are a "one-man show".

Rashid's lawyer Farogh Naseem pointed out that Article 17(2) is "subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan".

He insisted that a person who violates Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution should not be allowed to lead a political party since it is a "matter of public leadership".

Babar Awan, the counsel for PTI, another petitioner in the case, directed the court's attention towards the upcoming Senate elections and said that a disqualified politician was handing out tickets for Senate candidates from the PML-N.

Awan recalled that South African leader Nelson Mandela expelled his wife from his party but she never said "mujhey kyun nikala" (why was I expelled), a question that has constantly been raised by Nawaz at public gatherings and rallies following his disqualification.

"Don't owe an explanation to anyone"
Referring to Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi's speech in the Parliament on Monday, Justice Nisar said that the judiciary had never called any politician a "thief". Instead, the CJP said that he had praised the country's leadership and added that he does not "owe anyone an explanation".

PM Abbasi had criticised the judiciary for "insulting" elected officials, during a National Assembly session on Monday.

“I was not willing to say this but it had become necessary. The elected representatives of the 207 million people are being dubbed as thief, robber and mafia. Sometimes threats are being hurled that we [judges] will nullify the legislation that you [parliamentarians] have passed,” Mr Abbasi said in his apparent reference to the hearing of the Elections Act 2017 case.

Nawaz was disqualified by an apex court in the Panama Papers case last year under Article 62 of the Constitution for failing to declare a receivable salary as an asset.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1390816/n...f-sc-gives-verdict-in-elections-act-2017-case

 

[Syed1]

Our jahil quam may still vote for the Nooras, but these minor victories are thoroughly enjoyable for us who stand against corruption.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Its not a rocket science. a CHOOR will remain a CHOOR. no matter what noonis think of it.

 

[Syed1]

Its not a rocket science. a CHOOR will remain a CHOOR. no matter what noonis think of it.

Well in the hearts and minds of our nation they are still a good option. Mark my words, Noon will win more than 100 seats in the next elections.

 

[Bewal Express]

Our jahil quam may still vote for the Nooras, but these minor victories are thoroughly enjoyable for us who stand against corruption.

I love their humiliation. Well done SC, clear and concise.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Well in the hearts and minds of our nation they are still a good option. Mark my words, Noon will win more than 100 seats in the next elections.

Sad.

But your right, they are going to sweep Punjab again. Will be interesting to see how/if Shahbaz Shariff as PM.

PTI, sadly, has no chance. I feel IK is an honest politician but he somehow always finds a way to screw himself.

 

[Syed1]

I love their humiliation. Well done SC, clear and concise.

Senate elections delayed since the candidate's nomination papers had NS's signatures on them. More trouble for mughay kyun nikala and more misery for [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] types.



Somebody slap some sense into PTI and IK to start doing politics on this and not leave open field for NS.


#I'm lovin' it

 

[srh]

Farooq Nasim is an awesome advocate. He first fight to get this case heard by SC and then eventually fight to win this case in SC. Marvelous. I am happy that SC made the right decision.

 

[Syed1]

This might mean the Lodhran elections are null and void. Let's wait and watch. Exciting times ahead.

 

[Sher Khan]

Nawaz sharif has been the PM of Pakistan 3 times already. Aik dafa Imran Khan becharay Ko Bhi PM banay do. Let's see if he is just talk or can actually do something practical for Pakistan.

 

[Bewal Express]

Senate elections delayed since the candidate's nomination papers had NS's signatures on them. More trouble for mughay kyun nikala and more misery for [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] types.



Somebody slap some sense into PTI and IK to start doing politics on this and not leave open field for NS.


#I'm lovin' it

TBH it looks as if it doesn’t matter what the PTI does the mainly illiterate masses are not going to change. But this is IK’s victory as it’s a result of the Panama scandal which IK brought to the attention of the courts. Well done IK,well done SC.

 

[Syed1]

Farooq Nasim is an awesome advocate. He first fight to get this case heard by SC and then eventually fight to win this case in SC. Marvelous. I am happy that SC made the right decision.

You mean Farogh Nasim? The MQM guy? He is such a decent guy I always wondered what he was doing associating himself with the toad of London.

 

[the Great Khan]

Senate elections delayed since the candidate's nomination papers had NS's signatures on them. More trouble for mughay kyun nikala and more misery for [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] types.



Somebody slap some sense into PTI and IK to start doing politics on this and not leave open field for NS.


#I'm lovin' it

I think they were waiting for this verdict. A week is a long time in politics. They have tried everything to distract people e.g. using Khans personal life. But now that this verdict has been announced the PTI can finally begin their campaign. The PMLN's campaign at the moment has centred around NS. Mujhay kyon nikala etc..now what? theyll have to start again..

Another victory for the SC against the choars. No matter what happens to IK he has changed the face of politics forever!!

 

[Bewal Express]

Nawaz sharif has been the PM of Pakistan 3 times already. Aik dafa Imran Khan becharay Ko Bhi PM banay do. Let's see if he is just talk or can actually do something practical for Pakistan.

True but at least when walks into a room no one thinks that he has sucked the blood of the poor and helpless. Gali Gali main shore sara tabor chore

 

[srh]

You mean Farogh Nasim? The MQM guy? He is such a decent guy I always wondered what he was doing associating himself with the toad of London.

I am talking about the advocate of Sheikh Rasheed. SC was initially hesitant of hearing this case but the advocate of Sheikh Rasheed give SC good reasons to hear this case. No MQM.

 

[the Great Khan]

Nawaz sharif has been the PM of Pakistan 3 times already. Aik dafa Imran Khan becharay Ko Bhi PM banay do. Let's see if he is just talk or can actually do something practical for Pakistan.

He built a cancer hospital and turned it into an institution. If he dies tomorrow that one deed he did will be enough for generations of Pakistanis. And dont forget the billion tree plantation project. Even if he hasnt planted a billion he has done more for future generations than the sharifs.

 

[Sher Khan]

He built a cancer hospital and turned it into an institution. If he dies tomorrow that one deed he did will be enough for generations of Pakistanis. And dont forget the billion tree plantation project. Even if he hasnt planted a billion he has done more for future generations than the sharifs.

I understand and respect Imrans achievements for Pakistan and its people. But still a long way to go if you get what I mean, we are still a third world country. Our hopes are pinned on Imran. As frankly, I don't have hope from any of our other politicians.

 

[Bewal Express]

He built a cancer hospital and turned it into an institution. If he dies tomorrow that one deed he did will be enough for generations of Pakistanis. And dont forget the billion tree plantation project. Even if he hasnt planted a billion he has done more for future generations than the sharifs.

The Sharifs have been in power for 25 of the last 33 years inPunjab and haven’t built a single hospital of a standard that they would use themselves.
Poor Kulsoom had to settle for London at £200-250K( for the Nooras K stands for thousands) for 3 nights. She spent a month in that hospital at a conservative estimate, even our Noora friends can do the maths of how much it cost the poor Pk tax payers.

 

[Bewal Express]

I understand and respect Imrans achievements for Pakistan and its people. But still a long way to go if you get what I mean, we are still a third world country. Our hopes are pinned on Imran. As frankly, I don't have hope from any of our other politicians.

We had one idiot last night trying to damage the hospitals for political point scoring. Nooras will stoop as low as possible to save the king. So Nooras this verdict is for you.

 

[shah_1]

Shahbaz will be the most happiest right now

 

[the Great Khan]

I understand and respect Imrans achievements for Pakistan and its people. But still a long way to go if you get what I mean, we are still a third world country. Our hopes are pinned on Imran. As frankly, I don't have hope from any of our other politicians.

Unfortunately I don't think he'll be able to do it. The best scenario for us is that the sharif, bhuttos etc are expunged from Pakistani politics and we can get competent people in charge to guide the system forward.



Now read this:

Dr Benjamin Moore, a Liverpool physician, in 1910 in The Dawn of the Health Age was probably the first to use the words 'National Health Service'. He established the State Medical Service Association which held its first meeting in 1912 and continued to exist until it was replaced by the Socialist Medical Association in 1930.[1]

Before the National Health Service was created in 1948, patients were generally required to pay for their health care. Free treatment was sometimes available from Voluntary Hospitals. Some local authorities operated hospitals for local ratepayers (under a system originating with the Poor Law). The London County Council (LCC) on 1 April 1930 took over from the abolished Metropolitan Asylums Board responsibility for 140 hospitals, medical schools and other medical institutions. The Local Government Act 1929 allowed local authorities to run services over and above those authorised by the Poor Law and in effect to provide medical treatment for everyone. By the outbreak of the Second World War, the LCC was running the largest public health service in Britain.[2]

Dr A. J. Cronin's controversial novel The Citadel, published in 1937, had fomented extensive criticism about the severe inadequacies of health care. The author's innovative ideas were not only essential to the conception of the NHS, but in fact, his best-selling novels are said to have greatly contributed to the Labour Party's victory in 1945.[3]

The Emergency Hospital Service established in 1939 gave a taste of what a National Health Service might look like.

Systems of health insurance usually consisted of private schemes such as Friendly societies or Welfare societies. Under the National Insurance Act 1911, introduced by David Lloyd George, a small amount was deducted from weekly wages, to which were added contributions from the employer and the government. In return for the record of contributions, the workman was entitled to medical care (as well as retirement and unemployment benefits) though not necessarily to the drugs prescribed. To obtain medical care, he registered with a doctor. Each doctor in General Practice who participated in the scheme thus had a 'panel' of those who have made an insurance under the system, and was paid a capitation grant out of the fund calculated upon the number. Lloyd George's name survives in the "Lloyd George envelopes"[4] in which most primary care records in England are stored, although today most working records in primary care are at least partially computerised. This imperfect scheme only covered workers who paid their National Insurance Contributions and was known as 'Lloyd George's Ambulance Wagon'. Most women and children were not covered.

sound familiar? This is england prior to the creation of the national health service. Why in the 33 years of rule have the sharifs not managed to create a health service in the punjab along the lines of the NHS? they love to go to england to use the NHS but dont create it at home. Why?

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="ur" dir="rtl">نواز شریف کتنی بار نا اہل ہوا؟<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%DB%81%D9%84_%D9%BE%DA%BE%D8%B1_%D8%B3%DB%92_%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A7%DB%81%D9%84?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#نااہل_پھر_سے_نااہل</a> <a href="https://t.co/fp3wDCf24d">pic.twitter.com/fp3wDCf24d</a></p>— PTI (@PTIofficial) <a href="https://twitter.com/PTIofficial/status/966320641954713601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[LegendInzi]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

 

[Syed1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nawaz Sharif has now been disqualified more times than Imran Khan has been married.</p>— Jeremy McLellan (@JeremyMcLellan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyMcLellan/status/966325407908876288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bewal Express]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

I am loving it. Nooras are hurting and dont understand the role of the constitution. But its been a great day.

 

[the Great Khan]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

yes i mean how the hell can a court shoot down a "law" from the parliament when the law is unconstitutional..sack the lot of them and replace them with some judges the PMLN like..

 

[the Great Khan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nawaz Sharif has now been disqualified more times than Imran Khan has been married.</p>— Jeremy McLellan (@JeremyMcLellan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyMcLellan/status/966325407908876288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

hahahahahaha....classic..

so we had mujhay kyon nikala, and what will the next slogan be? "meray bhai ko kyon nikala" or perhaps " main mujeeb hoan pait phaar kay or something lol"

 

[Syed1]

For people crying conspiracy:

Parliament is not supreme, constitution is and the parliament passed an act which violated the constitution and hence has been put down by the Supreme Court.

 

[the Great Khan]

For people crying conspiracy:

Parliament is not supreme, constitution is and the parliament passed an act which violated the constitution and hence has been put down by the Supreme Court.

yes but but Nawaz was born to lead and erm he had a letter and erm look imran got married..and ..oh..

 

[Madplayer]

I cant believe the court had to intervene for it. How can a thief head a political party? Imran khan was right to send lanats on the parliament which passed the most embarrassing bill in the history of bills.

Atleast the court is functioning well.

 

[Bewal Express]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

Just a few examples from America.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/21/us/top-u-s-supreme-court-decisions-fast-facts/index.html

Top US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts

Spoiler

(CNN)Here's a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

1803 - Marbury v. Madison

This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.
Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.


1857 - Dred Scott v. Sandford

This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the US.


1896 - Plessy v. Ferguson

This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, "The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races... if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." The Court gave merit to the "Jim Crow" system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision.


1954 - Brown v. Board of Education

This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware, and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Broad of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.


1963 - Gideon v. Wainwright

This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's due process clause.


1964 - New York Times v. Sullivan

This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama's libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.


1966 - Miranda v. Arizona

The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights - "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"


1973 - Roe v. Wade

This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman's right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

Situation: "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.


1974 - United States v. Nixon

This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

Situation: President Richard Nixon's taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.


1978 - Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke

This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male, and 35 years old. He claimed under California's affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

The Court decided in Bakke's favor, 5-4.

Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race can not be the only factor in the admissions process.


2012 - National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law's central provision - a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.


2013 - United States v. Windsor

This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they resided. Upon Spyer's death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in federal taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

Historical significance: The court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.


2015 - King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges "established by the state" referred to the individual states.

The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.


2015 - Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. The number of states allowing gay marriage hit 37 before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.


2016 - Fisher v. University of Texas

Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.


2016 - Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

Situation: This case was about determining whether two key provisions in Texas' House Bill 2, enacted in 2013, constituted an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions in Texas.

The court ruled 5-3 in favor of Whole Woman's Health.

Historical Significance: The provisions provide "few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so." This is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades.


Honorable mentions:

1944 - Korematsu v. United States - The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

1961 - Mapp v. Ohio - "Fruit of the poisonous tree," evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

1967 - Loving v. Virginia - Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

1968 - Terry v. Ohio - Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry's conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

2008 - District of Columbia v. Heller - The Second Amendment does protect the individual's right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

2010 - Citizens United v. FEC - The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment's right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

 

[the Great Khan]

next parliament will pass a law where any politician caught "committing a theft will not be answerable to anyone but parliament.."this is hilarious..if a people are so stupid and corrupt that they cant even see how wrong this is, well what can one say??

 

[Syed1]

NS even announced Shahid Khaqan Abbasi as PM, so question is, is his nomination annulled as well?

 

[Bewal Express]

Just a few examples from America.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/21/us/top-u-s-supreme-court-decisions-fast-facts/index.html

Top US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts

Spoiler

(CNN)Here's a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

1803 - Marbury v. Madison

This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.
Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.


1857 - Dred Scott v. Sandford

This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the US.


1896 - Plessy v. Ferguson

This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, "The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races... if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." The Court gave merit to the "Jim Crow" system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision.


1954 - Brown v. Board of Education

This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware, and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Broad of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.


1963 - Gideon v. Wainwright

This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's due process clause.


1964 - New York Times v. Sullivan

This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama's libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.


1966 - Miranda v. Arizona

The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights - "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"


1973 - Roe v. Wade

This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman's right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

Situation: "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.


1974 - United States v. Nixon

This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

Situation: President Richard Nixon's taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.


1978 - Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke

This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male, and 35 years old. He claimed under California's affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

The Court decided in Bakke's favor, 5-4.

Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race can not be the only factor in the admissions process.


2012 - National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law's central provision - a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.


2013 - United States v. Windsor

This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they resided. Upon Spyer's death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in federal taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

Historical significance: The court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.


2015 - King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges "established by the state" referred to the individual states.

The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.


2015 - Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. The number of states allowing gay marriage hit 37 before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.


2016 - Fisher v. University of Texas

Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.


2016 - Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

Situation: This case was about determining whether two key provisions in Texas' House Bill 2, enacted in 2013, constituted an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions in Texas.

The court ruled 5-3 in favor of Whole Woman's Health.

Historical Significance: The provisions provide "few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so." This is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades.


Honorable mentions:

1944 - Korematsu v. United States - The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

1961 - Mapp v. Ohio - "Fruit of the poisonous tree," evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

1967 - Loving v. Virginia - Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

1968 - Terry v. Ohio - Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry's conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

2008 - District of Columbia v. Heller - The Second Amendment does protect the individual's right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

2010 - Citizens United v. FEC - The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment's right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

For all Nooras just read the 1803 Marbury v Madison.

 

[Bewal Express]

NS even announced Shahid Khaqan Abbasi as PM, so question is, is his nomination annulled as well?

That would be the irony of all ironies. Showbiz must be hoping so.

 

[Syed1]

Allah al-haq hai.... just two days ago Nooras were having field day regarding IK's marriage and spewing all kind of filth. Today they are running for cover since their king has once again been declared a corrupt thief.

 

[Madplayer]

NS even announced Shahid Khaqan Abbasi as PM, so question is, is his nomination annulled as well?

Not sure. Maybe they would say NS announced it prior to court's declaration. Or simply elect another Chairman and ask him to announce Abbasi as the PM again? I

 

[Zeeraq]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

One word for you - Constitution.

Laws can only be passed if they don't violate constitution.

 

[Madplayer]

One word for you - Constitution.

Laws can only be passed if they don't violate constitution.

True.

What the court has done is called judicial review. Its important in any democracy. After all judiciary is the watch dog of democracy.

 

[Bewal Express]

One word for you - Constitution.

Laws can only be passed if they don't violate constitution.

In this and age do we really have to explain the supremacy of the constitution?

 

[DRsohail]

[MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION]@Syed1 just got up now and happpy to hear good news.Yes minor victories but very impactful.

 

[Syed1]

[MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION]@Syed1 just got up now and happpy to hear good news.Yes minor victories but very impactful.

Bhai where are you living these days? Time in Pak is 9:15pm.... hardly a time to be getting up at.

 

[Bewal Express]

[MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION]@Syed1 just got up now and happpy to hear good news.Yes minor victories but very impactful.

Great news and correct decision which leaves no room for interpretation by Nooras. I thought the SC would get cowed by these crooks but these guys in the SC are brave.

 

[the Great Khan]

the Noora's have dissappeared..wait no IK marriage smear? no KPK lies to spread?

your sher has been sent packing again due to his own stupidity. Its beyond hilarious. as doctor sahib says "Game on hai"..

 

[Syed1]

IK right now:

 

[DRsohail]

Bhai where are you living these days? Time in Pak is 9:15pm.... hardly a time to be getting up at.

HAAH live in PAK but hectic schedule of being trainee doctor.

 

[Syed1]

HAAH live in PAK but hectic schedule of being trainee doctor.

Good luck.... doctor ki life buhat sakht hoti hai.

 

[Slog]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

Lmao you do know that the parliament can't pass anything it feels like and has to follow the law and the constitution

Parliament's legislation is subject to the judicial approval everywhere in the world there is democracy

 

[Saeed]

Good. They have got plenty of crooks to replace him unfortunately. Will Maryam head the party next and will she be able the nominate the same people Nawaz nominated?

Justice Nisar, however, said that in Pakistan's political setup, political parties are personality driven. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan seconded the CJP's statement, saying that political parties are a "one-man show".

If the above quote is true than surely this decision will affect the upcoming General elections.

 

[Zeeraq]

In this and age do we really have to explain the supremacy of the constitution?

Apparently to some people(most of them being PMLN supporters), we do have to explain it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It would have been physically sickening to see Nawaz become PM again this summer.

Great news.

 

[saadibaba]

Nothing will change. Nawaz Sharif will still be making all the party decisions no matter who gets appointed as the party head. If anything, this will intensify the feelings among PML-N voters that their leader is being targeted, hence giving Nawaz Sharif an even stronger footing as he claims victimization at the hands of the judiciary.

A temporary win by PTI and others, but in the long run this verdict is bound to make the rallying cry of "mujhe kuon nikala" even louder giving PML-N a unique position to present itself as the opposition while being in power all these years.

Personally, article 62 and 63 has no place in the constitution and should never be used.

 

[Saeed]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

More like the system of checks and balances at work. “This decision in particular has riled up quite a few people because the judiciary decided to strike down a law that protects dishonest leaders”. This sounds better.

 

[Mamoon]

A disqualified PM should not be allowed to lead his party. What is the problem or the confusion here?

 

[KingKhanWC]

A disqualified PM should not be allowed to lead his party. What is the problem or the confusion here?

The Sharif's obviously feel differently. I read his daughter not long ago saying her father will be PM of Pakistan very soon. Can you send her an email to explain she is wrong and there should be no confusion on her part?

 

[Mamoon]

The Sharif's obviously feel differently. I read his daughter not long ago saying her father will be PM of Pakistan very soon. Can you send her an email to explain she is wrong and there should be no confusion on her part?

Maryam is delusional, and I think there is some friction within the Sharif family because Shehbaz is the de facto leader now. He is PML-N's last hope.

Obviously he is not without his faults, but he is far better than Nawaz and Maryam.

 

[Varun]

No biggie, if Nawaz Sharif's party wins he will be the puppet master a la Sonia Gandhi, controlling a hapless face below him.

Which I believe he is doing right now as well.

 

[Syed1]

No biggie, if Nawaz Sharif's party wins he will be the puppet master a la Sonia Gandhi, controlling a hapless face below him.

Which I believe he is doing right now as well.

The thing is, a big chunk of the PML-N vote is based on the personality of Nawaz Sharif. If he is out of the running then their votebank will take a hit even if he continues to pull the strings from behind the scenes.

 

[Varun]

The thing is, a big chunk of the PML-N vote is based on the personality of Nawaz Sharif. If he is out of the running then their votebank will take a hit even if he continues to pull the strings from behind the scenes.

Good news for Imran Khan then.

 

[www787]

Shaddi Imran ti tey rukhsait Nawaz di, Mubarak to both.

 

[Syed1]

Shaddi Imran ti tey rukhsait Nawaz di, Mubarak to both.

Hahahhahahahahaha hilarious )

 

[Bewal Express]

Good news for Imran Khan then.

As we seen it makes little difference among the masses. As Trump said i could kill people and i would still win. In the Punjab heartlands and Sindh votes wont change because we have a crooked PM.

 

[Waseem]

Shaddi Imran ti tey rukhsait Nawaz di, Mubarak to both.

Hahahaha

This is politics of Pakistan, no victory or loss is permanent.

People have short memories and forget even biggest scandals so PTI shouldn't celebrate and instead use this to create an awareness campaign.

Next big verdict is NAB case verdict which is even more important as Nawaz/Maryam could even be jailed so prepare people mentally and educate them in advance "Mujhay kyun nikaala".

 

[Waseem]

For those crying conspiracy once again, this is what Indian Chief Justice said last week. It was biggest insult to democracy when a disqualified person was elected as party head, this was just an obvious decision.

How can a convicted person head a political party, asks CJI Dipak Misra

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Monday questioned the logic behind having a criminal and corrupt person as the head of a political party. He said such a lapse was a huge blow to the purity of the election process.

Far worse is the prospect of democracy when such a criminal at the head of political party has the power and authority to choose candidates who would contest elections under his party's banner, Chief Justice Misra observed at the head of a three-judge Bench.

The court said having a criminal decide who the people should vote for, by itself, goes against the basic tenet of democracy.

"How can a convicted person be an office-bearer of a political party and select candidates to contest elections? This goes against our judgements that corruption in politics [are] to be ostracised from the purity of elections," Chief Justice Misra orally observed, addressing the government and the Election Commission of India (ECI).

"So, is it that what you cannot do individually [that is contest elections], you can do collectively through some of your agents" the Chief Justice asked.

"A man cannot directly contest an election, so he constitutes a group of persons to form a political party and contest an election. People can form an association of people to do philanthropic activities like have a hospital or a school. But when it comes to the field of governance, it is different," he said.

Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand said the government would need some time to file a response.

The court said a reform to ban convicted persons from becoming office-bearers of political parties would be in consonance with its past judgements slamming corrupt politics.

The court posted the case after two weeks.

Should ECI be allowed to deregister a political party?
In December last, the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether the ECI should be empowered to deregister a political party on the ground that a convicted person has either formed it or is a crucial office-bearer.

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who filed the petition, reasoned that if a convicted person could be banned from contesting elections, he or she should be also debarred from heading a political party and controlling other elected members of his or her party.

The petition names leaders like the RJD's Lalu Prasad, who was convicted in the fodder scam cases, and INLD leader O.P. Chautala, who was found guilty in the junior teachers recruitment scam.

“Presently, even a person who has been convicted for heinous crimes like murder, rape, smuggling, money laundering, sedition, loot, dacoity etc. can form a political party and become party president,” the petition contended.

It also sought to declare Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 as “arbitrary, irrational and ultra vires the Constitution and authorise the ECI for registration and deregistration of political parties as suggested by the Goswami Committee on Electoral Reform.” However, the petitioner withdrew this prayer.

The Goswami Committee, in 1990, said Section 29A allowed political organisations to get registered simply by conforming to the provisions of the Constitution. The section, the committee said, effectively took away the power of the ECI to register political parties under the Symbols Order. This had opened the door for “non-serious” candidates from hosting their own political parties.

ECI had proposed amendment to Section 29A
In 2004, the ECI proposed that an amendment should be made to Section 29A, authorising it to issue apt orders regulating registration/deregistration of political parties.

“The proliferation of political parties has become a major concern as Section 29A allows a small group of people to form a political party by making a very simple declaration. Presently, about 20% of registered political parties contest election and remaining 80% parties create excessive load on electoral system and public money,” the petition said.

Registration should be a carefully monitored affair by the ECI as “political parties hold constitutional status and wield constitutional powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution in as much as they have the power to disqualify legislators from Parliament and State Assemblies, bind legislators in their speeches and voting inside the house, decide what laws are made, decide whether Government remains in power and decide public policies that affect lives of millions of people,” it said.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="ar" dir="rtl">احتجاج احتجاج احتجاج</p>— AbidSherAli (@AbidSherAli) <a href="https://twitter.com/AbidSherAli/status/966305431672053761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Rona dhona incoming

 

[Saeed]

Our jahil quam may still vote for the Nooras, but these minor victories are thoroughly enjoyable for us who stand against corruption.

Probably but if PTI goes into upcoming elections with that attitude it won’t win much. PTI must explain everything to awaam in layman’s terms including this mujhe kyun nikala thing. Social media campaigns and explanations don’t count as I doubt average voters follows them.

 

[Syed1]

Probably but if PTI goes into upcoming elections with that attitude it won’t win much. PTI must explain everything to awaam in layman’s terms including this mujhe kyun nikala thing. Social media campaigns and explanations don’t count as I doubt average voters follows them.

Khan sahab ko shaadi valimay se fursat milay tou woh siyasat karien na..... he and his team should have been in the media doing subcontinental politics on it today, but he does British politics in which opponents are given space "to explain themselves"



Then Noon league will again come back with majority and he will be left blaming dhandli.

 

[Bewal Express]

Probably but if PTI goes into upcoming elections with that attitude it won’t win much. PTI must explain everything to awaam in layman’s terms including this mujhe kyun nikala thing. Social media campaigns and explanations don’t count as I doubt average voters follows them.

This i agree with. The PTI need to talk the language that the masses understand in Punjab.

 

[yasir]

What a load of crap is Supreme Court of Pakistan? - First they gave verdict 5-0 on Ikama for life(not an year or one term but for life), that too in weeks. 6 months has gone, nothing has been done against NS actually charges. Now this decision

What is the relationship between 62/63 and head of a political party? 62/63 is applicable for member of parliament, he is not even one of them. How can that be applicable to a non MLA? -There is no legal basis for this decision. If he is a criminal,put him in jail. All renoun terrorist can live and head parties in Pakistan, like Hafiz Saeed, Osama, ex dictator like Musharif who threw constitution in trash, but the most popular leader in the country cannot have a political party, again because Army does not want him.

This is after math of Lodha, Army came to the conclusion, “Don ko harana mushkil he nahieen, na munkin hai”, they have to take NS out, cannot beat him in election...

SC is consistently showing they are nothing but shameless puppet of Army. What’s the point of election, if Army is the king maker all the time. There is no future of democray in Pakistan till we have such a strong Amry. These elections are another big joke. Such a sissy Army we got, cannot fight against popular leader. Fatima Jinnah, Bhutto, Benezir and now Nawaz, never had balls despite all the money and power to fight once against top leader in open

 

[Waseem]

What a load of crap is Supreme Court of Pakistan? - First they gave verdict 5-0 on Ikama for life(not an year or one term but for life), that too in weeks. 6 months has gone, nothing has been done against NS actually charges. Now this decision

What is the relationship between 62/63 and head of a political party? 62/63 is applicable for member of parliament, he is not even one of them. How can that be applicable to a non MLA? -There is no legal basis for this decision. If he is a criminal,put him in jail. All renoun terrorist can live and head parties in Pakistan, like Hafiz Saeed, Osama, ex dictator like Musharif who threw constitution in trash, but the most popular leader in the country cannot have a political party, again because Army does not want him.

This is after math of Lodha, Army came to the conclusion, “Don ko harana mushkil he nahieen, na munkin hai”, they have to take NS out, cannot beat him in election...

SC is consistently showing they are nothing but shameless puppet of Army. What’s the point of election, if Army is the king maker all the time. There is no future of democray in Pakistan till we have such a strong Amry. These elections are another big joke. Such a sissy Army we got, cannot fight against popular leader. Fatima Jinnah, Bhutto, Benezir and now Nawaz, never had balls despite all the money and power to fight once against top leader in open

Of course they are lad of crap but just to make you aware that Supreme court gave 6 months to NAB to complete their investigation and the deadline is end of February. Nawaz Sharif has been unable to provide any more proof to prove his innocence and unfortunately Qatari letter has been dispatched to bin already.

Problem is you have already mad your mind that Nawaz Sharif is innocent and everything is a conspiracy against him so nothing will make sense to you otherwise for most people it was MOST easiest decision to make since he had been disqualified on CORRUPTION charges and nowhere in the world would anyone could head party after such serious charges.

Iqama excuse will go to bin very soon just like Qatari letter.

 

[Reddy]

Pathetic decision from a compromised judiciary. Extremely dangerous precedent when the courts try to strike down laws approved from parliament.

This legislation in particular had riled up quite a few people after their attempt on 28th July to eliminate NS from Pakistani politics.

1. First it was internally disputed by certified pawns like Sheikh Rasheed

2. Then a lashkar was sent on Islamabad under the command of Khadim Rizvi to arm twist govt in repealing the law

3. When nothing else worked, Chief Justice had to expose himself fully with today's decision.

A disqualified PM should not be allowed to lead his party. What is the problem or the confusion here?

What a load of crap is Supreme Court of Pakistan? - First they gave verdict 5-0 on Ikama for life(not an year or one term but for life), that too in weeks. 6 months has gone, nothing has been done against NS actually charges. Now this decision

What is the relationship between 62/63 and head of a political party? 62/63 is applicable for member of parliament, he is not even one of them. How can that be applicable to a non MLA? -There is no legal basis for this decision. If he is a criminal,put him in jail. All renoun terrorist can live and head parties in Pakistan, like Hafiz Saeed, Osama, ex dictator like Musharif who threw constitution in trash, but the most popular leader in the country cannot have a political party, again because Army does not want him.

This is after math of Lodha, Army came to the conclusion, “Don ko harana mushkil he nahieen, na munkin hai”, they have to take NS out, cannot beat him in election...

SC is consistently showing they are nothing but shameless puppet of Army. What’s the point of election, if Army is the king maker all the time. There is no future of democray in Pakistan till we have such a strong Amry. These elections are another big joke. Such a sissy Army we got, cannot fight against popular leader. Fatima Jinnah, Bhutto, Benezir and now Nawaz, never had balls despite all the money and power to fight once against top leader in open

Pakistani military has always controlled the judiciary, you have decades of examples of how army dictates stuff to the judiciary, all the military coups also get rubber stamps from judiciary. UN declared International terrorists roam around without conviction and people like Musharraff come and go from Pakistan whenever he wants But No efforts are spared in trying to politically eliminate Nawaz sharif the most popular leader of the country, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Nawaz 's only mistake was going against the terrorists which are army's strategic assets against Afghanistan and India and they didn't like the fact that the elected prime minister dare tell them to do away with these strategic assets, Dawn leaks revealed everything, that was when it was decided to destroy Nawaz Sharif, he is too popular to do a Benazir like operation, so judiciary was called in to do the dirty job.

 

[Waseem]

Pakistani military has always controlled the judiciary, you have decades of examples of how army dictates stuff to the judiciary, all the military coups also get rubber stamps from judiciary. UN declared International terrorists roam around without conviction and people like Musharraff come and go from Pakistan whenever he wants But No efforts are spared in trying to politically eliminate Nawaz sharif the most popular leader of the country, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Nawaz 's only mistake was going against the terrorists which are army's strategic assets against Afghanistan and India and they didn't like the fact that the elected prime minister dare tell them to do away with these strategic assets, Dawn leaks revealed everything, that was when it was decided to destroy Nawaz Sharif, he is too popular to do a Benazir like operation, so judiciary was called in to do the dirty job.

Behti ganga main haath dhona

Look who is here to provide support to our friends.

Nawaz is so innocent, his only fault was he was against terrorism but evil Army doesn't want terrorists to die because their funding will reduce. Who cares if they lose their soldiers on daily basis fighting the terrorists and who cares who launched Zarb e Azab against terrorists when politicians were still deciding what to do and their so called NATIONAL ACTION PLAN has been absolutely useless.

ISI sponsored Panama leaks so they could disqualify an innocent and brave Nawaz Sharif, they even forced entire judiciary to act against innocent Sharifs. Same judiciary that was hailed as most independent in our history before Panama leaks is being called worst in the history. Same judges who bravely sentenced Mumtaz Qadri to death and had amazing record as per PMLN's own leaders (CJP Saqib Nisar had actually represented Nawaz Sharif not long ago).

 

[CricketCartoons]

So the supreme court will decide who can be the leader of a political party? This is not democracy...it is oligarchy.

 

[TM Riddle]

So the supreme court will decide who can be the leader of a political party? This is not democracy...it is oligarchy.

SC has every right to intervene when It feels the rule of law established by Constitution is being threatened or compromised by the executive or legislature.

 

[CricketCartoons]

SC has every right to intervene when It feels the rule of law established by Constitution is being threatened or compromised by the executive or legislature.

Does Pakistan have a basic structure doctrine? Wonder where was the sadiq and ameen requirement all these days.

 

[TM Riddle]

Does Pakistan have a basic structure doctrine? Wonder where was the sadiq and ameen requirement all these days.

Tbh I had Indian Constitution in my mind when I made that comment. I guess someone like [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] could answer this question.

 

[Varun]

Khan sahab ko shaadi valimay se fursat milay tou woh siyasat karien na..... he and his team should have been in the media doing subcontinental politics on it today, but he does British politics in which opponents are given space "to explain themselves"



Then Noon league will again come back with majority and he will be left blaming dhandli.

Is it fair to say that Imran Khan has expended more energy on his marriage than the upcoming elections?

 

[Waseem]

Does Pakistan have a basic structure doctrine? Wonder where was the sadiq and ameen requirement all these days.

Can't take sadiq and ameen too literally, some people think Nawaz Sharif has been disqualified due to this vague term. He could've been disqualified based on many lies inside the parliament and on national tv about his assets. I think 95% of parliament would be disqualified if Sadiq or Ameen was implemented.

I think it needs to be clarified to remove all these vague terms to specify exactly what is punishable crime but that does not mean Nawaz Sharif is innocent, he was disqualified due to non declaration of Iqama which was linked to undeclared companies with millions worth transactions.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Can't take sadiq and ameen too literally, some people think Nawaz Sharif has been disqualified due to this vague term. He could've been disqualified based on many lies inside the parliament and on national tv about his assets. I think 95% of parliament would be disqualified if Sadiq or Ameen was implemented.

I think it needs to be clarified to remove all these vague terms to specify exactly what is punishable crime but that does not mean Nawaz Sharif is innocent, he was disqualified due to non declaration of Iqama which was linked to undeclared companies with millions worth transactions.

Wasn't he disqualified based on article 62/63? That's like catching al capone for tax evasion. The system wanted to punish him and this is the only legal stick they could find.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

'Deliberations underway to disqualify me from politics for life,' Nawaz claims after SC ruling

Former premier Nawaz Sharif, who was removed as head of his own party on Wednesday by the Supreme Court, accused 'them' ─ without specifying who they are ─ of deliberating over how to deprive Nawaz Sharif of participation in politics for the rest of his life.

Sharif, speaking to the media outside an accountability court in Islamabad ─ where he appeared with his daughter Maryam Nawaz for the hearing of corruption references against himself and his family members ─ said the Supreme Court's ruling on the petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017 was not unexpected for him.

Sharif was disqualified from public office in a landmark July 28, 2017, judgement on the Panama Papers case, after which he was also removed from his post as PML-N head. The passage of the Elections Act 2017 paved the way for him to be re-elected as head of the party once again in October.

The former PML-N chief said that the apex court's ruling which stripped him of party presidency was not unexpected for him.

"First, they paralysed the executive," Sharif said. "Then yesterday, they snatched away the authority of Parliament [to make laws]."

He added that after the Panamagate verdict stripped him off his premiership and yesterday's ruling took away his position as party head, he was now only left with his name. "Now, only I am left. My name Muhammad Nawaz Sharif remains. If you want to snatch this as well then do it," he said.

"Find an article in the Constitution ─ you may be able to find it ─ through which you can take away Muhammad Nawaz Sharif's name. And if you do not find it, then take help from Black's Law Dictionary," Sharif said, referring to the Panamagate verdict which had relied on the dictionary to specify the definition of the term 'asset'.

Sharif said that there is no law in Pakistan that gives the court the right to disqualify a prime minister the way he was.

"Now they are further deliberating over disqualifying Nawaz Sharif from politics for life. What is all of this?" he questioned.

He claimed that the court had declared the Elections Act 2017 as being person-specific, although the same law had originally been created by former PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and abrogated by a martial law administrator.

Following his appearance at the accountability court, Sharif and Maryam were granted an exemption from appearing before the court for the rest of the day's proceedings.

The court was hearing three references related to the Sharif family's Flagship Investments Ltd, the Avenfield (London) properties, Jeddah-based Al-Azizia Company, and Hill Metal Establishment, filed in accordance with the SC orders in the Panamagate verdict.

The court reserved its judgement on objections by Sharif's counsel regarding the filing of supplementary references by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), adjourning the hearing until 1:30pm, when statements of two witnesses — the owner of UK-based Quist Solicitors, Akhtar Raja, and principal at the Radley Forensic Document Laboratory, Robert W. Radley — will be recorded via video link.

Defence counsel Ayesha Hamid argued that supplementary references were a way to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. She also argued that her client's legal team was not informed about the new witnesses, therefore did not have enough time to prepare for cross-questioning.

She said that it was not possible to record the statements of 17 witnesses in one day and requested more time for preparation.

Explaining the need to file supplementary references, the NAB prosecutor explained that the SC had asked NAB to file preliminary references within six weeks which is why supplementary references had to be filed later.

New evidence including new documents have been included in supplementary references, he added.

Following his appearance at the accountability court, Nawaz Sharif and senior PML-N leaders held a meeting at Punjab House in the capital.

A large number of PML-N workers and supporters gathered in the grounds of Punjab House and chanted slogans in Sharif's favour, after which the sacked party head took to the roof of the building and waved to his supporters. Video footage also showed the former PML-N chief addressing workers inside Punjab House.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1390995/d...olitics-for-life-nawaz-claims-after-sc-ruling