Quote:
Originally Posted by redmax
1. You said that Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 was verified by Parliament in the same year. What does the 'verify' stands for here? Surely, it cant mean 'Passing' since Parliament never passed it. Had it been so, it wud have been called an 'Act' instead of ordinance.
2. You said lawyers of the convicted did not raise this point. Well, considering Attorney General to be on the side of Gilani and an other counsel Mr. Fawad Chaudhry to assist attorney, they both raised this point which also sparked anger in one of the judges in the bench. They did question the very existence of the law under which an elected PM was being tried & subsequently convicted.
|
well redmax this is exactly what i meant the parliament endorsed the ordinance in 2003 and it became the act and its clause IV repealed the previous contempt of court act 1976 and became the law (act)...
@ rose_pak:
Not only you bro, every other sane mind in the country has serious reservations on the way the apex court has been acting as a party in certain cases. Even the vanguards of the lawyers moment had to admit it with a heavy heart that 'This is not what they struggled for'.
Regards,[/QUOTE]
what do you mean that the Apex court has acted as a party in some cases? would you be a little specific, in which case they acted so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabahatbhutta
Being a student of Political Science I am very disappointed by this decision.
CJ has jolted the base of trichotomy of Power forever.
After 10 or 15 years this decision will be refuted by the judges themselves.
There should be check and balance on the power of Judiciary. If not then we are heading towards to face another SACRED COW in the country.
|
i don't think that when justice Marshall established the principle of judicial review in US, the people of would have objected in that blatant way as you are doing...
why don't you want to see the rule of law flourishing in this country???
you are always found mudslinging on CJ, what's your problem???
Quote:
Originally Posted by redmax
1. You said that Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 was verified by Parliament in the same year. What does the 'verify' stands for here? Surely, it cant mean 'Passing' since Parliament never passed it. Had it been so, it wud have been called an 'Act' instead of ordinance.
2. You said lawyers of the convicted did not raise this point. Well, considering Attorney General to be on the side of Gilani and an other counsel Mr. Fawad Chaudhry to assist attorney, they both raised this point which also sparked anger in one of the judges in the bench. They did question the very existence of the law under which an elected PM was being tried & subsequently convicted.
@ rose_pak:
Not only you bro, every other sane mind in the country has serious reservations on the way the apex court has been acting as a party in certain cases. Even the vanguards of the lawyers moment had to admit it with a heavy heart that 'This is not what they struggled for'.
Regards,
|
i had to do a lot of search but finally iv'e got that...
here is the proof that 2003 ordinance was endorsed by the parliament thus made act...
para 6 and 3rd last line...
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-New...3-contempt-law