Quote:
Originally Posted by axsim
I mean is'nt the Supreme Court, the finally consulted institute that can over ride the amendments made by parliment, can null n void the legislations and direct the parliment to look into the issue again and that the Supreme Court is the only which is there to translate the laws and constitution, hence i believe its proved logically that the Supreme Court is supreme than that of parliment.
 |
Although Supreme court is vested with the power of judicial review of legislation, and courts across the globe have used this power occasionally .However use of this power, is a controversial issue and termed as an encroachment on the domain of Parliament by the critics. Moreover courts does not use this power quite often.
I myself believe that every institution of state must restrict it self to its constitutional jurisdiction.Judicial review is actually a protection to the constitution in extreme circumstances.For example if the elected assembly ,through alterations in constitution , change the democratic dispensation in to a monarchy and the ruling party wields the required majority to pursue its objective , Supreme court is last resort to avert such situation.However this is a mere an imaginative situation ,with a remote possibility.
One thing more , besides the constitution ,there are certain universally accepted norms that needs to observed for smooth functioning of the system.For example . the head of sate can grant reprieve to any individual convicted by court. However such a power is rarely used .If President start granting pardon to every convicted ,though with in the constitutional limits, the criminal justice system of state will collapse.
Likewise If these both institutions follow the route of conflict, the entire structure will be eroded. Supreme court consist of 17 judges who can just pass orders whereas the implementation rests with the executive branch.Just imagine , if executives refuse to obey the orders of court ,what kind of situation will arise?Or ,for instance, parliament make amendment in constitution that sack all the judges and require new appointments to be made? The situation will be like this: Govt will immediately make the new appointments while sending the incumbent judges to home.If this piece of legislature is challenged in the court, it is highly unlikely that the new judges will abrogate this law.
In the given circumstances ,the supreme court ,should respect the will of parliament. The conflict will only destabilize the system ,that Pakistan can not afford at this critical juncture of the history. Politicians are undoubtedly highly disapproved part of our society. But where the judges stand? Have they not committed treason while defying the constitution and granting legitimacy to dictatorial regimes? What if parliament pass resolution that any judge who ever took oath under PCO should not hold the office of judge? Leave all things aside, will there be any moral flaw in such enactment?Obviously not.Therefore ,common sense must prevail and every institution should limit itself to its legal boundaries devised by the constitution while respecting the mandate of other institution.