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.
Regards,
|
The Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 replaced the Contempt of Court Ordinance 1976. Later it was approved by the parliament in 2003 making it an act. I am note sure why it is still being called Ordinance. However, it was made an act by the parliament.
Then in 2004 another Contempt of Court Ordinance 2004 was issued which repealed the existing Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. However 2004 Ordinance lapsed as the parliament did not approve it. This automatically revived the contempt of court ordinance 2003.
But why are we in this whole discussion? Leave aside that the SC has given reference to this ordinance. The fact is that article 204 of 1973 constitution empowers the courts to proceed against any persons committing contempt.