#11
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
@ Bilal & rose_pak
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,
__________________
Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says "Be!" - and it is! (Al-Quran) |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to redmax For This Useful Post: | ||
rose_pak (Thursday, June 21, 2012), sabahatbhutta (Thursday, June 21, 2012) |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
@ 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:
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:
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 Last edited by Shooting Star; Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 06:43 PM. Reason: merged/Use multi-quote button |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ahmad Shakeel Babar . "If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized." |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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,
__________________
Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says "Be!" - and it is! (Al-Quran) |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
I am too disappointed.
I am writing may be after it i may receive sue motto notice for giving bad remark for the judgement. but i can because it freedom of expression is right of every citizen.
The day the the SC got the so called independence, it is using its independence selectively. Here independence means having independence of listening selected cases. People were happy that they are going to get justice but did they want an elected PM packing?? Gone are the days when only military was threat to democracy, but know a govt. can be go without coping. It look, this court is pleasing certain group of people who struggled for its so called independence. Even some person who really worked hard for the restoration of judges are regretting that they are not satisfied. I do not why the SC do not here the cases against nawaz and other blamed people for certain cases and hasten to hear and conclude few cases. In past there was just few people were the enemy of democracy but now all the so called true lawyers(the guardian of justice) are against the process of democracy. No doubt the PM was convicted but there should be a win win situation only for the sake of democracy. The 1st time in Pakistan's history i PM was going to complete its tenure but this was not bearable to most the people. Democracy requires compromises and SC could choose another way. This issue can be solved politically, because there were the people who had given mandate to PM and not the SC. People want their problems getting solved not want that there problems are delayed because of higher cases. We do not want any money from Swis accounts, we want that our at least we get justice free of cost and as soon as possible. But the higher judiciary is busy in seeing faults in others and do not seen in its own greban. I am not with PPP but i m pro-democracy and pro people. This judiciary do not late in issuing orders when ppp person is involved in any case but forget about other ones. I appropriate govt's decision to not to go against judiciary decision, it could go but it choose to again show patience and compromise for larger terms. There can not be always win-lose situation. And other way which is called win win situation can be followed. But in our country we are not to used to see like this. We just think about win-loss situation and at the end these are the people who suffer. What a poor person got from this decision??? Once again govt. is busy in choosing its PM then who will make order in country, who will do something for good governance and education and health. We as a nation need work on basic issues rather than fighting with each other. It's clear that we can not have leaders who are angels, we should learn to make the system correct and should learn to PM accountable. We needed to learn to accept PM like Yousaf Raza Gilani. Finally i would like to write few good words for former PM YRG. He was one of the best PM of Pakistan who showed patience. He used to had friendly relationship with his opponents. Hats off to the former PM. He really gave a huge qurbani for his party. He was loyal to party and also one of the honest person. He is not loser in my eye he is winner. My all sympathies are with him. May Allah Almighty give sense to follow right direction because in this direction we are not going to achieve anything.
__________________
For me it is enough that I am different from others. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Irtika For This Useful Post: | ||
redmax (Thursday, June 21, 2012), sarang ali shaikh (Friday, June 22, 2012), younis_78 (Sunday, June 24, 2012) |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I believe the way the SC has disqualified the PM was not fair but had their any morality factor in Pak politics the President would have resigned after the NRO was annulled. PM Gillani would have resigned after his cabinet minister of commerce was accused of corruption in NICL scame, his minister for water and power was accused in RPP case, his minister for religious affairs was accused in Haj scam. So morality or ethics are not the factor in pak politics. If we see the SC order in this background, there seems sanity in its judgement. But still it is mess!!!!
__________________
Ahmad Shakeel Babar . "If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized." |
The Following User Says Thank You to rose_pak For This Useful Post: | ||
redmax (Friday, June 22, 2012) |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Like you are against the absolute immunity, I'm totally against the immunity at all. But I'm just debating over a principle i.e. if the supreme law of the land does contain such a provision then the apex institution for taking care of law & justice must uphold that provision. The parliament may at any stage legislate and do away with the immunity granted to the office of the president. SC cannot legislate on the issue or amend the constitution. Regards,
__________________
Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says "Be!" - and it is! (Al-Quran) |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
people are disappointed that Supreme court sent a corrupt PM home, that not only did contempt the court but did so very openly, if the popularly elected PM was delivering then i am too against this verdict of supreme court...
if the people elected the PM then they would have definitely been against the court but if you guys don't know let me tell you that people took a breath of relief that Gillani is going, those who elected him are happy that he has gone irrespective of the fact that their problems would still be there... if you people are talking about Public opinion and General will then both of these things are manifested in the recent gallop poll and a report of Transparency International that this government did corruption of 5 billion PKR per day...if still SC did a bad thing then it ought to ousted... and i think we must leave that country too as it is the property of those who are popularly elected to loot and then leave forever...The family of ex popularly elected PM has already left the country for good, definitely nobody is stopping them as well just like Gillani was not stopping every 1 out 3rd pakistani who wants to leave that country.... |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
SC did a great job! and Sabahat, though you are student of political science, you always put fingers on the role of SC! I wonder, why you are so against SC? There must be something behind the curtain! would you please tell us the reasons of your hatred towards SC?
Bilal Hassan: Those who are part of PPP, they will never ever acknowledge or laud the rulings of SC, no matter how prudent or educated they are. Why Zardari accepted SC decision? A simple question to all of you.. Even, MQM, accepted the verdict of SC! I just want to know why? Zardari is still ruling this country, and he has the powers to call his jiyals to chant slogans on street against SC? Han khape aur na kape ke iktiyart bhe to in ke pass he.. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
List Of Important Topics For Essays | Sureshlasi | Essay | 31 | Monday, December 19, 2022 11:41 PM |
Asma Jilani ---- Vs---- Govt. of the Punjab | sajidnuml | Constitutional Law | 5 | Saturday, November 11, 2017 06:00 PM |
Need help: Constitution's questions | rqabutt | Constitutional Law | 11 | Monday, February 07, 2011 11:06 PM |
Judicial Activism | Soulreader43 | International Relations | 0 | Saturday, February 13, 2010 07:10 PM |