‘If a judge unconsciously follows incorrect view, he has freedom to adopt correct view of law’

[Acetic Acid]

I have a question.. the verdict noonies are trying to quote is a majority decision?

Nope
It was minority
It was 17 Judges bench and 9 majority judges had other views.

And secondly these were observations on 21st amendment case

 

[Flight of falcon]

As Justice Owen Roberts of US SC famously said: the judgments and precedents of the Supreme Court should not be like train tickets - “good for this day and this train only”…

‘If a judge unconsciously follows incorrect view, he has freedom to adopt correct view of law’​

This was part of the short order given by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi vs Deputy Speaker​

The Supreme Court has held that “if a judge has unconsciously followed an incorrect view of the law, he has by conscious application of mind the freedom to adopt the correct view of the law subsequently”.

View attachment 865574

This was part of the short order given by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi vs Deputy Speaker, Provincial Assembly of Punjab, in which it nullified Deputy Speaker Mazari’s ruling of July 17. On the matter of arguments related to District Bar Association, Rawalpindi vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401), the SC has said that the submissions made by the counsel were not accepted.

In doing so, the Apex Court has relied on the common law device of ‘per incuriam’ -- loosely translated as: through lack of care or ‘through inadvertence’. The court in its short order said that the observations (in the District Bar Association Case) being relied upon with respect to Article 63A were discordant with the actual provisions (of the Constitution) and that -- even if they had binding effect -- they should be read as ‘per incuriam’.

In the past, the SC has held that the test for finding whether something is per incuriam is that either the court finds that there is a conflicting judgment of a larger bench or that there was an ignorance of a Constitutional provision, something that wasn’t considered at all, or there’s a gross misinterpretation of a Constitutional provision, which is what it seems to have been argued here in Tuesday’s short order. The finding of per incuriam in this instance drives home the point that even if it were a decision of the majority, which in the 2015 case wasn’t, it would still have been per incuriam and so relying on the paragraphs by the counsel for the deputy speaker was self-defeating because the argument in itself was based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution. And if a judge had initially signed off on such misinterpretation, there is room within justice to adopt a corrected view at a later date.

‘If a judge unconsciously follows incorrect view, he has freedom to adopt correct view of law’

KARACHI: The Supreme Court has held that “if a judge has unconsciously followed an incorrect view of the law, he has by conscious application of mind the freedom to adopt the correct view of...

www.thenews.com.pk

What is the guarantee that tomorrow in another case the judge will take the position that my judgment of 2022 was wrong??

Not everyone is haram ki aulad as Patwaris are .

 

[Jango]

The same Supreme Court bench immediately accepted IK's request that MPs should honour their party leadership's directions and this was because they feared some of these MPs in Punjab could go to PDM. When it came to Ch, Shujat's case, who is the leader of PML-Q they denied him that same right and worse when it came to NS, where they not only declared him an offender without any legal evidence and fair legal proceeding, they stripped him of his party leadership. Wah wah.Judges kay sadkay kurban jayn lol

O khuda kay wastay, you are the tenth person since yesterday I am telling this to, actually read the judgement of the SC in the 25 lotas case, and then comment.

You joined the forum in 2007, so you must be at least 30 years old right now. Please my good sir, do not embarrass yourself like this. I can send you the link of the judgement as well if you require so.

I have a question.. the verdict noonies are trying to quote is a majority decision?

They aren't even quoting a decision, they are quoting an observation by a single judge who was of the minority opinion. And the case itself wasn't about 63-A either, it was about the 21st amendement, and was talking about a completely different subject altogether.

Pooray faislay main say aik line nikal kar you can't prove your point.

It's like I say yeah, my exports have grown by a tremendous 300%, but the growth is actually from 100 million to 300 million $. One figure alone seems pretty good, but taken into context shows a completely different picture.

 

[Jungibaaz]

SC ruling was understandable, but in the light of their prior ruling on May 17th, I take the view of SCBA and PBC on this matter. 63A needs some reworking, the selection of benches needs to become depoliticised, and the twain rulings on the same subject this year need to be reconciled no matter if even the outcomes are left utterly unchanged. Constitution needs to be above reproach, and the judges need to steer clear of controversy even if that's where politics is taking them.

@saiyan0321 Not meaning to pull you out of retirement, but another write-up on recent controversies and 63A, as well as the like-minded panel, all of these would be keenly read by yours truly.

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

Listen..., it's a bit too late to start digging up old vids or whatever.

Pretty Soon, by the end of this year, we'll be saying 'Bye-Bye' to you lot for good.

You're welcome to bitch about it when the time comes.

For now, sit back & watch the show. It's gonna be eventful.

I personally can't wait to see what happens to that bha`rwa Rana S.

We are listening same plot since Ghulam Ishaq Khan era.

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

jo 3 month mei kuch find nahi hoa tou agey bhi kai hona hie? tosha khana case or any other case?

Now its your turn to face the sound, abhi tou har wo cheez reverse karni hie jo pdm nei ki apnay ap ko bachanay ke liye

This was open and shut case, NAB chairman under Imran Khan colsed this case even it was proved in SC that PE gave this forest land to Malik Riaz in lieu of monetary benefits. It was like same case at mega level of Saqib Nisar capturing bottles from Shajeel Memon, PTI folks would keep drumming that Shajeel Memon Case but never utter a word on this case.

NAB summons Pervaiz Elahi in forest land case ​

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau has summoned Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi in connection with its probe into illegal allotment of forest land in Rawalpindi to a...

www.thenews.com.pk

SC summons ex-CM Pervaiz Elahi in Bahria Town case ​

Entire nomenclature of land was changed only to grab it, observes chief justice.

www.dawn.com




ایسے تو نہیں عمران خان پرویز الہی کو پنجاب کا سب سے بڑا ڈاکو کہتا تھا

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

This is not the first time that the Chief Justice has taken a U-turn on his own words. During the hearing of Article 63A reference, the chief said that rejecting the vote of a member of parliament is an insult, but in the decision of May 17, he said that the vote of dissenting members will not be counted!

 

[RescueRanger]

JJuat

Yaar really how old are you? or your brain didn't grow as your age?

out of 35 members, 25 were on bail, CM on bail, pm on bail.

And you are talking about investigation? Why there is no case in the court in 4 months?

April, may, june, july.

Still if you have objection go to court and now don't forget to ask for full bench and give judges name
1. Justice ghadira farooqi
2- Justice saleem Saafi
3- Justice najam sethi
4- Justice Asma Sherazi
5- Justice shahzaib khan zada

Hope you will get the our favorite decision

Just review his post history, he just parrots things until people get bored and stop replying.

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

Nope
It was minority
It was 17 Judges bench and 9 majority judges had other views.

And secondly these were observations on 21st amendment case

It was actually 9 (not 8) judges who in 18th amendment judgment understood Art 63A to mean party head gives direction on how to vote.
8 judges wrote the decision CJ mentioned while Justice Dost Muhammad Khan also stated same views.
See J. Dost M Khan’s opinion below (unlike the others, he raises concern about party head’s powers)
Why didn’t SC mention this in its order?

9/12 judges who discussed 63A understood it to give party heads power to give directions
3/12 judges understood it to give parl. party the power 2 judges didn’t comment on 63A
3 judges didn’t comment on 63A for lack of jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552344686848778240

 

[AZ1]

This was open and shut case, NAB chairman under Imran Khan colsed this case even it was proved in SC that PE gave this forest land to Malik Riaz in lieu of monetary benefits. It was like same case at mega level of Saqib Nisar capturing bottles from Shajeel Memon, PTI folks would keep drumming that Shajeel Memon Case but never utter a word on this case.

NAB summons Pervaiz Elahi in forest land case ​

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau has summoned Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi in connection with its probe into illegal allotment of forest land in Rawalpindi to a...

www.thenews.com.pk

SC summons ex-CM Pervaiz Elahi in Bahria Town case ​

Entire nomenclature of land was changed only to grab it, observes chief justice.

www.dawn.com




ایسے تو نہیں عمران خان پرویز الہی کو پنجاب کا سب سے بڑا ڈاکو کہتا تھا

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552525583766142976

dako imran khan ne kaha tha, nawaz sharif ko daku court nei kaha jabhi bhaga hoa.

pmln ko kaho new abbu dhodney ab

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552525583766142976

dako imran khan ne kaha tha, nawaz sharif ko daku court nei kaha jabhi bhaga hoa.

pmln ko kaho new abbu dhodney ab

 

[AZ1]

View attachment 865819

So you endosing this is what pmln does.
Check this your lefafa anchors also getting some sense

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552375792700628992