Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilal Hassan
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?
|
In several cases, SC has granted what was never prayed in the writ/petition filed before it. Refer to the detailed judgment in the Swiss case where SC proposed five options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rose_pak
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Then in 2004 another Contempt of Court Ordinance 2004 was issued which repealed the existing Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003.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.
|
That's right. I'm just bewildered at times when the SC takes into account one provision of the constitution and simultaneously negates the other.
Won't it be prudent to do away with the Article 248 first [Presidential Immunity] - the benefits of which SC has been consistently denying to the office of the president?
Sometimes I feel it's a total mess!
Regards,