It seems that the judiciary is more powerful through judicial review. However, there must be a check on judicial review.
Even the article 175 which deals with the appointment of judges falls victim of judicial review. During adhoc judges case the SC advised the parliamentary committee to provide with the reasons to the judicial commission for negating any appointment proposed by latter. The gov't kept silence in 19th amendment on this. As of now the matter stands like this: Under 19th amendment the PC does not need to provide reasons for negating the appointment of any judge proposed by the JC, however under adhoc judges case, it ought to be, as the adhoc judges case has become a case law.
So, the matters are not so easy here. there has to be check and balance and the limits has to be withdrawn.
Secondly, even if contempt of court ordinance does not have any legal backing (as PPP says), the court is still comptent enough to convict the accused under article 204 of the constitution. (article 204 also authorizes the courts to proceed against contempt of court). However, I believe the SC cannot do mistake by referring to 2003 ordinance, it must have a legal backing. (But i have to research on this)
Thirdly, the ruling against speaker national assembly is not a Judicial Review. Any action by the superior judiciary on a parliamentary act is called judicial review. the speaker's ruling (under article 63 (2)) is not "internal proceedings" of the parliament. So, it is not a judicial review of a parliamentary act.
I do have reservations on delaying decisions on some other issues, particularly related to Sharifs etc. I also think the SC should have declared this, unambiguously, on apr 26 rather than issuing a dual meaning (rather multi-meaning) verdict.
Ahmed Shakeel Babar
"If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized."