Doctrine of Judicial Review & Its Reins
 

The SC has relied on the doctrine of judicial review in deciding the case of Yousuf Raza Gilani's conviction over contempt of court. While there's no denying to the fact that SC does enjoy as well as exercise judicial review powers as enshrined in the constitution, I wonder if such discretionary powers are beyond any reins or these do have some checks on it. A few questions, [B]Can SC overrule Parliament? Does Constitution of I.R.Pakistan guarantee Parliamentary Supremacy?
[/B]
In case, there are no limits to the exercising of the powers of judicial review, it would reaffirm the faith of many in an old dictum which states;

[B][I]Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[/I][/B]If there are checks on the exercising of the judicial review powers, I would really like to know their description and legal sources.
[B][/B]Over to you, guys.
[B]Regards,[/B]

[B]Article 200 of constitution of IRP[/B] The President may transfer a Judge of a High Court from one High Court to another High Court, but no Judge shall be so transferred except with his consent and after consultation by the President with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of both High Courts 1[:] Provided that such consent, or consultation with the Chief Justices of the High Courts, shall not be necessary if such transfer is for a period not exceeding two years at a time.
Clause (4) of the Article says, “A Judge of a High Court who does not accept transfer to another High Court under clause (1) shall be deemed to have retired from his office and, on such retirement, shall be entitled to receive a pension calculated on the basis of the length of his service as Judge and total service, if any, in the service of Pakistan”. This clause 4 has been repealed in 20th amendment.
[B]Article 175A[/B] in the Constitution which deals with appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, High Court and the Federal Shariat Court. He said the insertion of Article 175A in the Constitution says that there shall be a judicial commission for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, High Court and the Federal Shariat Court.
general Musharraf in 2003 also ensured the sacredness of Apex court by an ordinance which became the part of constitution which enabled the court to take action using its actual jurisdiction against the person or the institution thereto, that offended it and convict the same...

[QUOTE=Bilal Hassan;443278][B]Article 200 of constitution of IRP[/B] The President may transfer a Judge of a High Court from one High Court to another High Court, but no Judge shall be so transferred except with his consent and after consultation by the President with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of both High Courts 1[:] Provided that such consent, or consultation with the Chief Justices of the High Courts, shall not be necessary if such transfer is for a period not exceeding two years at a time.
Clause (4) of the Article says, “A Judge of a High Court who does not accept transfer to another High Court under clause (1) shall be deemed to have retired from his office and, on such retirement, shall be entitled to receive a pension calculated on the basis of the length of his service as Judge and total service, if any, in the service of Pakistan”. This clause 4 has been repealed in 20th amendment.
[B]Article 175A[/B] in the Constitution which deals with appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, High Court and the Federal Shariat Court. He said the insertion of Article 175A in the Constitution says that there shall be a judicial commission for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, High Court and the Federal Shariat Court.
general Musharraf in 2003 also ensured the sacredness of Apex court by an ordinance which became the part of constitution which enabled the court to take action using its actual jurisdiction against the person or the institution thereto, that offended it and convict the same...[/QUOTE]


From what I can assume you are referring to the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 - it lacks legal backing necessary for an ordinance. It is yet sail through the Parliament of Pakistan for becoming a permanent law of the land.


[B]Regards[/B],

[QUOTE=redmax;443419]From what I can assume you are referring to the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 - it lacks legal backing necessary for an ordinance. It is yet sail through the Parliament of Pakistan for becoming a permanent law of the land.


[B]Regards[/B],[/QUOTE]

before the contempt of court ordinance which was promulgated in 2003 by then president Gen Musharraf, the prevailing law for the said subject was contempt of court act of 1976 which was repealed by article IV of the 2003 ordinance so from then on the law that safeguards the integrity of Apex court is that ordinance...
it has legal sanction behind that...when on November 9th 2003 (i think so) the ordinance was promulgated, the National Assembly was not in session so Musharraf implemented it through ordinance but later on it was made an act by the parliament...
The supreme court has convicted many including Jang news chief or what was his rank i don't know and sindh assembly member and PPP spokesperson for sindh sharjeel memon and Yousuf Raza Gillani is the latest victim...
Apex court considers the ordinance of 2003 as law the politicians especially PPP leaders do not consider it as law because they do not consider the parliament of that time as the legel parliament thus their acts are also considered by them illegal ipso facto...but this is mere [B]mein nahi manta, mein nahi janta[/B] on their side...
court accept it as law, the law and constitutional experts call it law and jurists call it law, if it is not law then would you please tell me why didn't the lawyers of the convicts raise that point because if their clients were convicted by a law that is not law at all, they must have objected??? they didn't, because they also know that it is legally sanctioned law...

[SIZE="3"]:onesec I am not a legal expert, but I am wondering that while the same CJ had declared each and every legislation null and void before the emergency of 3rd November 2007. Then what is the legal position of the legislation of 2003 ordinance???[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=sabahatbhutta;443486][SIZE="3"]:onesec I am not a legal expert, but I am wondering that while the same CJ had declared each and every legislation null and void before the emergency of 3rd November 2007. Then what is the legal position of the legislation of 2003 ordinance???[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

my Dear sabah,make correction that he nullified every thing that was done [B]after[/B] that emergency not prior to it...
actually i was expecting that question, the CJ had indeed quashed all that was done in the posterior of the date you have mentioned but that ordinance was implemented [B]w.e.f 9th November 2003[/B] and was verified by the parliament the very same year, and CJ certainly has got nothing to do with incidents that took place 4 years prior to emergency when he was not chief justice even...
2nd thing when the ordinance was verified by the parliament, the Cj cannot nullify such thing that was done by peoples' representatives...
3rd, i do not consider is as a legal provision but think that if someone has done something good should it be quashed like throwing a baby outside with bathwater...???

[COLOR="Blue"]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.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=rose_pak;443498][COLOR="Blue"]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.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

well in Pakistan the judicial review does not prevail in the essence it does in United states, justice Marshall established the supremacy of it in the famous Malbury vs Madison case, there is yet another implication in the case of judicial review which is [B]Montesqieu's famous Theory of Separation of Powers[/B] which provides with effective force as well as balance of power among diffrent organs of state...
[B]BUT[/B] here in our country there has never been a case that established the supremacy of judicial review in true spirit so that it may become a convention,although we are highly impressed with Americans but we do not have the implication of separation of powers in letter and spirit, as sometime military intervenes, Executive crosses its limits then the judiciary has to come forward to guard the constitution...
there is no doubt that judiciary seems to be very powerful and proactive these days but its stance can be justified by the Doctrine of necessity...

[QUOTE=Bilal Hassan;443519]
there is no doubt that judiciary seems to be very powerful and proactive these days but its stance can be justified by the Doctrine of necessity...[/QUOTE]

I understand the current situation and am fully in favour of independence of judiciary. But I want this "DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY" be flushed out of our dealings as it neither have legal backing nor historical example of merit for the nation.

[QUOTE=rose_pak;443526]I understand the current situation and am fully in favour of independence of judiciary. But I want this "DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY" be flushed out of our dealings as it neither have legal backing nor historical example of merit for the nation.[/QUOTE]

i understand your concerns but in this case the doctrine of necessity really means need of the hour as executive has left the SC with no other choice...

[SIZE="3"]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.[/SIZE]

[COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"][B][B]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.[/B][/B][/COLOR]

@ 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'.

[b]Regards[/B],

[QUOTE=redmax;443624]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.[/QUOTE]
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'.

[B]Regards[/B],[/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=sabahatbhutta;443559][SIZE=3]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.[/SIZE]

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen][B][B]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.[/B][/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

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=redmax;443624]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'.

[B]Regards[/B],[/QUOTE]

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...

[URL]http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-38430-SC-recognises-2003-contempt-law[/URL]

[QUOTE=redmax;443624]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.



[b]Regards[/B],[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Bilal Hassan;443691]
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]

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=rose_pak;443940]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.[/QUOTE]

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!

[B]Regards[/B],

I am too disappointed.
 

I am writing may be after it i may receive sue motto notice for giving bad remark for the judgement. :sad 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.

[QUOTE=redmax;444126]

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!

[B]Regards[/B],[/QUOTE]

Yes it is a mess. But dont forget, SC is the only institution which can interpret the constitution. I am sure the SC does not consider presidential immunity as an absolute one. That is why the gov't has been reluctant to make shelter behind this shield. I personally think there must not be absolute immunity.

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!!!!

[QUOTE=rose_pak;444161]Yes it is a mess. But dont forget, SC is the only institution which can interpret the constitution. I am sure the SC does not consider presidential immunity as an absolute one. That is why the gov't has been reluctant to make shelter behind this shield. I personally think there must not be absolute immunity.

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!!!![/QUOTE]

Just tell me one thing. Does Article 248 put any restriction on the immunity granted to the office of the president?

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.


[B]Regards[/B],

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 [B]Public opinion[/B] and [B]General will[/B] 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....

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..

[QUOTE=Bilal Hassan;444431]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 [B]Public opinion[/B] and [B]General will[/B] 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....[/QUOTE]

By the way about which decision of SC are you talking about?? which practical steps have been taken for the case of Memogate, balochistan issue, hazara killings in Queta, mukhtaran mai(in this case it says it has not concrete evidence but i think MM herself is big evidence), and list goes on.
Sorry for all this, but when you can talk whatever comes in your mind then we also have the right to do so.
You can say that it only hears and conclude the cases in which ppp person are involved.
I am not from ppp, but i really want to flourish democracy in this country. but the problem is that our some institutions do not like this democracy. For broader benefits we need to ignore smaller ones.
No doubt this govt. is not delivering according to people's expectations but is SC doing according to people wishes?? people wanted justice at gross level, but unfortunately it failed give justice to common people. SC do not want to do something common you know it want to write its name in history. But for writing name in history one should give sacrifices but this is not the nature of SC. my all sympathies are with SC.
Well when something is against ppp in our media then it perceive media as one of the great instituation which tell truth. But when the same media talk about CJ's own credibility then it say media is crossing limit. Wow what a double standard.

[QUOTE=Asif3531;444580]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..[/QUOTE]
Well you expect from us that we laud a institution which does nothing practical except against one party. Sorry we are educated we are not going to believe what is delivered in paid media(the same media which even talked against Chief Justice). We believe what we see.
Han the great news is that one again we have selected a PM. Congratulations to all who believe in the process of democracy.
Now write whatever comes in your mind, we know perception is not reality so we will not mind it.

Good bye.

@Woo awesome bro, and Congrats RENTAL Raja has been selected as the new PM. Do you know the literal meaning of oligarchy? If, you do then how can you confuse it democracy? Judiciary is not against PPP people! Its against all those who are corrupt, regardless of their affiliation to any Party! Its not the problem of Judiciary, if PPP have more corrupt members bro!

I am sorry, but this is not my perception but a soar reality! and if it is the perception of common man (which you think of), how can you nullify the perception of Millions of Pakistani???

This statement "seeing is believing has been rejected by many" and now the new philosophical statement is, first believe, than you will see it!

[QUOTE=Irtika;445217]By the way about which decision of SC are you talking about?? which practical steps have been taken for the case of Memogate, balochistan issue, hazara killings in Queta, mukhtaran mai(in this case it says it has not concrete evidence but i think MM herself is big evidence), and list goes on.
Sorry for all this, but when you can talk whatever comes in your mind then we also have the right to do so.
You can say that it only hears and conclude the cases in which ppp person are involved.
I am not from ppp, but i really want to flourish democracy in this country. but the problem is that our some institutions do not like this democracy. For broader benefits we need to ignore smaller ones.
No doubt this govt. is not delivering according to people's expectations but is SC doing according to people wishes?? people wanted justice at gross level, but unfortunately it failed give justice to common people. SC do not want to do something common you know it want to write its name in history. But for writing name in history one should give sacrifices but this is not the nature of SC. my all sympathies are with SC.
Well when something is against ppp in our media then it perceive media as one of the great instituation which tell truth. But when the same media talk about CJ's own credibility then it say media is crossing limit. Wow what a double standard.


Well you expect from us that we laud a institution which does nothing practical except against one party. Sorry we are educated we are not going to believe what is delivered in paid media(the same media which even talked against Chief Justice). We believe what we see.
Han the great news is that one again we have selected a PM. Congratulations to all who believe in the process of democracy.
Now write whatever comes in your mind, we know perception is not reality so we will not mind it.

Good bye.[/QUOTE]
Democracy...what a bluff...democracy needs to exist before it could flourish...

[QUOTE=Asif3531;445227]@

I am sorry, but this is not my perception but a soar reality! and if it is the perception of common man (which you think of), how can you nullify the perception of Millions of Pakistani???

[/QUOTE]

I am PPP's supporter i may sound biased like you all are as a hater of PPP but i seriously think Pakistan doesn't contain cities -only; nor does whole pakistan use facebook. if you go in villages and even in small cities people still support PPP whether you like it or you scream like hell.

they say 'khao pio peer ka vote benazir ka'


problem is we haven't decided what system we want. democracy is good system but form of it we are experiencing is very vulnerable; again what could be done if majority of nation was creating instability for election in 2008, so now accept the result and give them full power for stability or simply change the system.

islamic khilafat would be right option -but again followers of other half and so called educated liberal enlighten moderation theory will create fermentation.
then there is option of army: there was army (musharraf) weren't people against him? wasn't so called whole pakistan aka facebook abusing him?
remember every time haters are sound and supporters silent but it doesn't mean they have no support. i can guarantee after 10 years same people will abuse this same judiciary.

so relax and live according to system. system is election and winner are given 5 years or otherwise just decide the system people want and give that government the authority and time. and live according to that.
it has been 6 years perhaps but there isn't stability because we still dont know who is the ruler who has power and authority then we say 'daikho china or pakistan nay sath azadi hasil ki per china kahan puhanch gaya or hum kahan hai"

jab her koi dada giri karayga to stability ksaay ayegi or baray dadagir k supporter bhi ziyada hotay hain it doesn't mean people respect that dadagir.

It has become obvious in the current unfolding of events that Pakistani system needs continuous overlooking to work, otherwise everyone assumes the role of "Messiah" :dd. Why shouldn't there be focus upon a more French-like semi-presidential system where Head of State is elected separately through popular vote and has some legislative and executive authority (for example in foreign and military affairs, might be given some religious authority as well for Pakistan :dd) but the cardinal role of Head of State would be of an arbitrator between the three branches of power ;). The Head of State might chair a "constitutional and religious council" to review the "Constitutionality" of any Act :dd.

[QUOTE=sarang ali shaikh;445261]I am PPP's supporter i may sound biased like you all are as a hater of PPP but i seriously think Pakistan doesn't contain cities -only; nor does whole pakistan use facebook. if you go in villages and even in small cities people still support PPP whether you like it or you scream like hell.[/QUOTE]

How can you say that we are against PPP?

Can you please prove it? Let me clear it you in a very simple way:

We are against all those who are spoiling the name of the party. These corrupt black sheep's are good for nothing. I'm telling you, if these remain, for few more years, PPP will lost most of the votes.

The Lyari operation aint pointing towards the realities? First, the so called Jiyals provided guns to them and then they started operation against all those who were PPP's supporters bro!

Zardari cant replace the name of ZA bhutto! PPP has already been divided! Even some PPP members are against this concept of reconciliation. Atleast, one can use common sense to analyse the whole scenario.

[QUOTE=Asif3531;445227]@Woo awesome bro, and Congrats RENTAL Raja has been selected as the new PM. Do you know the literal meaning of oligarchy? If, you do then how can you confuse it democracy? Judiciary is not against PPP people! Its against all those who are corrupt, regardless of their affiliation to any Party! Its not the problem of Judiciary, if PPP have more corrupt members bro!

I am sorry, but this is not my perception but a soar reality! and if it is the perception of common man (which you think of), how can you nullify the perception of Millions of Pakistani???

This statement "seeing is believing has been rejected by many" and now the new philosophical statement is, first believe, than you will see it![/QUOTE]


An expected response, by the way why are you silent on my other points?? why are you silent on my mentioned other soar realities?? For you only reality exists for corruption? ok then what about the corruption charges against CJ himself facing??
and as far as majority is concerned then why are you not accepting that majority of people choose PPP Govt. Majority of people want democracy, yeah this govt. is corrupt, ok then we have choice not to choose them in next election, but for it we have to give them chance to perform without any hurdles, but unfortunately this time military do not need to cope, here opposition and its court is enough for doing so.
Majority of people had given mandate to this govt.
Again double standard. Keep perceiving your so called reality. You have right. All the best.

[QUOTE=Asif3531;445330]How can you say that we are against PPP?

Can you please prove it? Let me clear it you in a very simple way:

We are against all those who are spoiling the name of the party. These corrupt black sheep's are good for nothing. I'm telling you, if these remain, for few more years, PPP will lost most of the votes.

The Lyari operation aint pointing towards the realities? First, the so called Jiyals provided guns to them and then they started operation against all those who were PPP's supporters bro!

Zardari cant replace the name of ZA bhutto! PPP has already been divided! Even some PPP members are against this concept of reconciliation. Atleast, one can use common sense to analyse the whole scenario.[/QUOTE]
The same people who are saying today that PPP will not survive were saying when BB took the post of PPP's chairperson seat. Time will tell, well no doubt it is hard to survive when all are against you. But ye to chalti hen tujhay or uncha uranay k liye. No doubt every party has black sheep and this party is also not without exception. PPP will survive by learning from its mistakes. But this party was, is, and will remain the biggest party of Pakistan. And recently it has proved it.
Ager ppp ki jaga koe or party be hoti na to liyari ka operation hona tha, ager operation na krti to ye same log kehtay k apnay jiyalon gangsters k khilaf kun party operation kray ki. You will keep identifying mistakes whatever will this govt. do, because from day one majority of people did not accept mandate given to this govt by heart.

[QUOTE=Irtika;445332] ok then what about the corruption charges against CJ himself facing?? [/QUOTE]

CJ son is facing charges, NOT CJ.


People gave them votes and elected them to serve the society in best manner. But what they did so far, except plundering with the public money on expensive trips? Mere bhai It doesnt mean that if they are elected by people they can do whatever they want and wont be liable for anything bad. When querashi, the then foreign minister tried to raise his voice, why he was dismissed from the ministry?

According to you, elected govt can do anything, specially if its PPP. No educated person will buy this opinion as it is against morality and justice.

Leaders have more responsibilities, and should accept responsibilities to serve the nation. They set trends for nation, and if they will get indulge in acts that are against justice and morality, then dont expect any good from lay man.

My comments are not meant to hurt anyone, nor i am biased towards any specific political party. we all should accept the realities and try to improve things rather than ignore it!

[QUOTE=Bilal Hassan;445228]Democracy...what a bluff...democracy needs to exist before it could flourish...[/QUOTE]
yeah you are right, and for making democracy to exist, we have to give this govt. to complete five years, that at least we can claim that we have experienced continuous five years civilian govt. 1st time in Pakistan history. No doubt this govt. has been facing difficulties in achieving this landmark and somehow it managed to survive even in hostile environment.

[QUOTE=Asif3531;445339]CJ son is facing charges, NOT CJ.


People gave them votes and elected them to serve the society in best manner. But what they did so far, except plundering with the public money on expensive trips? Mere bhai It doesnt mean that if they are elected by people they can do whatever they want and wont be liable for anything bad. When querashi, the then foreign minister tried to raise his voice, why he was dismissed from the ministry?

According to you, elected govt can do anything, specially if its PPP. No educated person will buy this opinion as it is against morality and justice.

Leaders have more responsibilities, and should accept responsibilities to serve the nation. They set trends for nation, and if they will get indulge in acts that are against justice and morality, then dont expect any good from lay man.

My comments are not meant to hurt anyone, nor i am biased towards any specific political party. we all should accept the realities and try to improve things rather than ignore it![/QUOTE]

Well how strong is your perception, i have guessed it. I am not bro, i am sis. :dd
Zardari is facing charges then why Yousaf Raza Gilani was removed??
like people given mandate to ppp for good governance, people also frighted for freedom of judiciary that their cases would be heard, that victims can get justice without offering corruption. But unfortunately it did not happen. Ahmad kurd himself fighted for the freedom of judiciary but today he is disappointed more than anyone else. Everyone was thinking Ahmad kurd as hero but today not listening that same here. We tend to hear what we like and what we like we make it a reality and in this way truth is replaced with likes and dislikes.

[QUOTE=Irtika;445343]yeah you are right, and for making democracy to exist, we have to give this govt. to complete five years, that at least we can claim that we have experienced continuous five years civilian govt. 1st time in Pakistan history. No doubt this govt. has been facing difficulties in achieving this landmark and somehow it managed to survive even in hostile environment.



Well how strong is your perception, i have guessed it. I am not bro, i am sis. :dd
Zardari is facing charges then why Yousaf Raza Gilani was removed??
like people given mandate to ppp for good governance, people also frighted for freedom of judiciary that their cases would be heard, that victims can get justice without offering corruption. But unfortunately it did not happen. Ahmad kurd himself fighted for the freedom of judiciary but today he is disappointed more than anyone else. Everyone was thinking Ahmad kurd as hero but today not listening that same here. We tend to hear what we like and what we like we make it a reality and in this way truth is replaced with likes and dislikes.[/QUOTE]

so now iv'e come to know why you are so blatantly defending PPP...as you are from Sindh...i do not want to create/promote any provincialism but you sindhi people are the real culprits, we are tolerating that Govt because of you people...
My Dear brother, you are so dear to me but one must be pragmatic and see things as a reliast, the things as they are...Public opinion or general will has manifestation that how much hatred they have for this govt so please do not be a back stabber, awake and please use your right of enfranchise as a patriot of Pakistan...

[QUOTE=rose_pak;444161]But dont forget, SC is the only institution which can interpret the constitution.................

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!!!![/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]I failed to understand what actuates the Apex Court to interpret the provision when the language of a provision is clear? And 1000 times we parrot the word "morality" pointing our fingers to former PM, bureaucrates, ministers, politicians etc etc, but why dont we blatantly demand the resignation of CJP (QAAZI-e-AALA) who is Mankooha of PCO (3 times YES to PCO, if i am not wrong). Where is MORALITY?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=unsolved_Mystery;445950][COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]I failed to understand what actuates the Apex Court to interpret the provision when the language of a provision is clear? And 1000 times we parrot the word "morality" pointing our fingers to former PM, bureaucrates, ministers, politicians etc etc, but why dont we blatantly demand the resignation of CJP (QAAZI-e-AALA) who is Mankooha of PCO (3 times YES to PCO, if i am not wrong). Where is MORALITY?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


I don't disagree with you but would like to share my thoughts on this.

Firstly, the power to interpret the constitution is given to the superior courts by the constitution itself and is also a case law, as judicial review is in practice across the globe. But the main question is, is there any bar on this power? Apparently not.

Secondly, the Pak power culture is mostly morality-less. Civil Servants, as well as Judges, are servants of the state. Politicians are the policy makers, so the politicians would have to set an example. Moreover, as far as CJP's PCO issue is concerned, we must not forget that, though lately, but he was the person who stood firm for upholding the rule of law in the face of Musharraf.

Thirdly, leave the morality factor aside and Gillani too, don't you think that the head of cabinet should relinquish his position if his ministers are found to be guilty of large scale corruption? or to the least, should he not force his minister to relinquish his position?

I think all institutions would have to work on good governance by setting examples, by handing down severe punishments, by going after the culprits and by strengthening the accountability. More responsibility, as universally accepted, for this is on political goverments, more than civil servants. As political governments are the ones who set the policy vision. Let a political government come with a iron fist and zero tolerance for corruption and greater resources for accountability and than see how the system changes.

[QUOTE=rose_pak;446088]
I don't disagree with you but would like to share my thoughts on this.

Firstly, the power to interpret the constitution is given to the superior courts by the constitution itself and is also a case law, as judicial review is in practice across the globe. But the main question is, is there any bar on this power? Apparently not.

Secondly, the Pak power culture is mostly morality-less. Civil Servants, as well as Judges, are servants of the state. Politicians are the policy makers, so the politicians would have to set an example. Moreover, as far as CJP's PCO issue is concerned, we must not forget that, though lately, but he was the person who stood firm for upholding the rule of law in the face of Musharraf.

Thirdly, leave the morality factor aside and Gillani too, don't you think that the head of cabinet should relinquish his position if his ministers are found to be guilty of large scale corruption? or to the least, should he not force his minister to relinquish his position?

I think all institutions would have to work on good governance by setting examples, by handing down severe punishments, by going after the culprits and by strengthening the accountability. More responsibility, as universally accepted, for this is on political goverments, more than civil servants. As political governments are the ones who set the policy vision. Let a political government come with a iron fist and zero tolerance for corruption and greater resources for accountability and than see how the system changes..
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]The same point which i have emphasized upon was also raised by the Ex.Indian SC Judge Markandey Katju that it is a settled principle of interpretation that if the language of a provision is clear, the court should not twist or amend its language in the garb of interpretation, but read it as it is.

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/06/22/news/national/pakistans-sc-has-gone-overboard-ex-indian-sc-judge/[/url]

It is very much evident even for the blind and the deaf that SC of Pakistan is not respecting the boundaries of other institutions. You have also admitted in one of your posts that the Suo Motos and other cases being taken up by the SC are selective, and it is strengthening the perception that PPPP is the target of Courts. I heard someone saying on TV that a politician has every right to be wrong, but a Judge? NO.

Morality:........ Shoot the politicians, they are not preaching morality. We'll first look at the person who, in court proceedings, give references of Prophet (PBUH) and Sahaba Karaam (RA) etc. We'll look at one who claims that everything will be done according to the constitution and islamic principles. Though, CJ stood against Musharaf, but i personally dont think that Musharraf was that bad guy. If he has some blunders on his shoulders, CJ too have some serious. It is not a matter of comparison or contrast. But, "U-Turn" is almost always harmful, particularly in the country like Pakistan enjoying defected democracy. Both Govt and SC are doing the same thing in one way or other: Politicians/Ministers are indulged in corruption and extending maximum favour to their loyals, and on the other side, SC is busy in taking up selective cases of one party, ostensibly benefitting the rivalry parties. Dont you know what is happening in lower courts? I consider the lowers courts most corrupt. Laywers can easily influence any case.
When an investigation report conducted against a politician or bureaucrate is placed before the CJ, he finds out many lapses in the investigation/prosecution and remands the case back to the Investigating Officer to remove the lapses and put up again, whereas in case of Mukhtaran Mai, all the accused were exculpated from the charges framed against them except one. Look at the "Wukala-Gardi", what they are doing? Even Judges are not safe now. How many Suo Moto actions were taken by CJ against laywers who beat the judges, hurled shoes at them, ridicules them, attacked on their chambers etc etc etc. How many laywers have been booked till now?
To set the example, the most venerable and dead honest person of the day i.e. CJ should come up with confession, resignation and apology. How can the politicians, who are most corrupt persons, set an example of morality?
The govt, since its formation, is in miserable circumstances having threatening allies, oppostion, media and courts, otherwise, I believe that President could have sent a reference against the CJ for passing an unconstitutional order to write a letter to swiss authorities to reopen the cases.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Bilal Hassan;445875]so now iv'e come to know why you are so blatantly defending PPP...as you are from Sindh...i do not want to create/promote any provincialism but you sindhi people are the real culprits, we are tolerating that Govt because of you people...
My Dear brother, you are so dear to me but one must be pragmatic and see things as a reliast, the things as they are...Public opinion or general will has manifestation that how much hatred they have for this govt so please do not be a back stabber, awake and please use your right of enfranchise as a patriot of Pakistan...[/QUOTE]

I couldn't write about this post earlier as I was having some internet problems.
I would like to address these comments right now.

[COLOR=Red][B]@ Bilal Hassan
These comments of yours are really hurting and not in any possible way can be regarded as something responsible. Such irresponsible comments could literally promote sectarianism and provincialism which the CSS forum management in any case will never allow to happen. Consider this post as a warning from the CSS forum management. Any such post in future will cost you a permanent ban.
[/B][/COLOR]

Umer bhai, I have no authority to suggest you anything nor i am favoring someone, as you are senior and reasonable person but aint it clear to all from the previous posts in this thread that how much these people are in favor of just a single political party which is widely known for spoiling the democratic system and their love towards that party is no exception. I don't know but if someone is trying to disclose something, why he/she is condemned (no matter if its known to everyone)? Those who are criticizing CJ is not against the Independent Judiciary? To me, criticizing CJ is like having doubts over his competencies? and IF he is considered Incompetent, why he was restored!

PLEASE dont think that I am favoring someone. I am sorry, I dont mean to be rude!

[B]Human nature cannot be rational, though exceptions are there[/B]

[QUOTE=Asif3531;446497]that how much [B]these[/B] people are in favor of just a single political party which is widely known for spoiling the democratic system and their love towards that party is no exception.[/quote]

[B]These [/B]people are present here, you can specifically quote the portion of their replies and ask them this question. If they can satisfy you, it is good and you can extract some positive points at the end of the discussion otherwise you can stick to your way of thinking and finally you will have some points to discuss in CSS exam. After all this is the basic reason for holding this discussion here. Isn't it?

[quote=Asif3531] I don't know but if someone is trying to disclose something, why he/she is condemned (no matter if its known to everyone)?[/quote]

There is a proper way of expressing and disclosing something and at this level a great deal of decency and sophistication in the approach of members is expected. If you are providing logic and can relate some authentic references to your disclosure, the chances are that you will be appreciated rather than be condemned.


[quote=Asif3531] Those who are criticizing CJ is not against the Independent Judiciary? To me, criticizing CJ is like having doubts over his competencies? and IF he is considered Incompetent, why he was restored!
[/quote]

Every picture has two sides. Everyone of us have a different way of thinking and a different set of opinions about different things. Someone's freedom fighter is others terrorist. Nobody can change this fact. This is how we operate in life on daily basis. And this is how a discussion excel.

[QUOTE=Umer;446503][B]These [/B]people are present here, you can specifically quote the portion of their replies and ask them this question. If they can satisfy you, it is good and you can extract some positive points at the end of the discussion otherwise you can stick to your way of thinking and finally you will have some points to discuss in CSS exam. After all this is the basic reason for holding this discussion here. Isn't it?[/QUOTE]

One must at least accept the reality, and that what we are groomed and trained for? I mean, look at the level of education on one side and interpretation of things on other side. Reality would remain reality, no matter how much its ignored.

[QUOTE=Umer;446503]There is a proper way of expressing and disclosing something and at this level a great deal of decency and sophistication in the approach of members is expected. If you are providing logic and can relate some authentic references to your disclosure, the chances are that you will be appreciated rather than be condemned.[/QUOTE]

Presenting realities in diplomatic manner wont change anything. The crux of the matter will remain the same. I dont know whether you are in sindh or but what hassan said exist in its very true form. It exist in latter and spirit and the fact cannot be denied. One should not confuse fact with fabricated stories. Interior sindh, today is one of the most vulnerable region in Pakistan coz of the policies of its own jiyalas, but No one is going to accept these facts. What they have done so far for the flood victims? But continuing support from victims side's is nothing but insanity.


[QUOTE=Umer;446503]Every picture has two sides. Everyone of us have a different way of thinking and a different set of opinions about different things. Someone's freedom fighter is others terrorist. Nobody can change this fact. This is how we operate in life on daily basis. And this is how a discussion excel.[/QUOTE]

But the dark side of the picture should not be ignored in any circumstances. If someone is raising his/her voice to make realize others is a very pious act. Difference of opinions do exists but not on things which are clear to everyone. When things are ambiguous, then one is justified in having his or her opinions. But when things are clear, then one must accept the said things and should try to change it. It would be sheer negligence on part of every pakistani, if they still show any reluctance in accepting mistakes and avoid trying changing it. Coming generations will simply hurl stones on our graves, its high time for us to leave aside the differences we have on petty things.

Umer I respect you, you are my senior and forgive me please if i am biased or said anything wrong.

Regards

[QUOTE=Umer;446495]I couldn't write about this post earlier as I was having some internet problems.
I would like to address these comments right now.

[COLOR=Red][B]@ Bilal Hassan
These comments of yours are really hurting and not in any possible way can be regarded as something responsible. Such irresponsible comments could literally promote sectarianism and provincialism which the CSS forum management in any case will never allow to happen. Consider this post as a warning from the CSS forum management. Any such post in future will cost you a permanent ban.
[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

ok...if i am promoting sectarianism or provincialism then these people are maligning the apex court and blatantly defending a political party which can never be justified by any means whatsoever, they are doing so against a sacred organ of state just because of typical party basis as if you have a look at their location, they happen to be from sindh...so won't your admin issue such a warning to them???i think you must also be guarding the state organs integrity as well as this is the matter of Pakistan not of a province alone...