Pakistan Supreme Court strikes down bachelor's degree requirement for lawmakers

[ejaz007]

No one has right to critize the decision of court. If you are aware and I hope you are this comes under contempt of court and is a punishable offense with prison sentence.

Freedom of expression is one thing and fully protected under constitution but stupid comments about a matter about which one is not fully competent an entirely different thing.

I suggest every one should first read the constitution and law and then comment on legal matters.

 

[mujahideen]

^^^^I totally understand what you are saying and believe me I respect the courts. But I ask you is it not the job of all of us to respect their decisions. You and I might respect them, but will others. The lawyers every day critize the courts, but no contempt of court order is issued. Why?

 

[ejaz007]

I can only speak for my self and not entire Pakistani nation. Every one is responsible for his or her actions. Before pointing finger on others one must try to improve himself.

Lawyers do not criticize courts decisions they are criticizing personalities such as present Chief Justice for taking oath under PCO. This is different. One can criticize and express his or her views but criticizing courts decisions or for that matter constitutional institutions decisions is not freedom of expression. They have authority and have exercised it. Simple as that.

 

[ejaz007]

Another point I just wanted to put forward. Supreme Court has given a decision. If some one does not like it he or she can file a review petition and court shall hear it. So instead of wasting your energies here go and use your constitutional right.

 

[blain2]

Another point I just wanted to put forward. Supreme Court has given a decision. If some one does not like it he or she can file a review petition and court shall hear it. So instead of wasting your energies here go and use your constitutional right.

Having stated the above, be mindful that this is a public forum and the exact purpose of this forum is to discuss the pros and cons of all things pertaining to Pakistan. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision of the high/supreme court is not wrong by any means. In the US, the population is split on the issue of Roe vs. Wade and this is debated over and over even though the US Supreme Court has given its verdict.

Also if I am not mistaken, "contempt of court" applies to those who are in the court and party to the case on hand. It does not apply to you, me or anyone else here who is not actively involved in the case. Nobody is showing disrespect for the judges, but there are people who disagree with the ruling...perfectly fine and within their right of self-expression under the Pakistani constitution.

 

[mujahideen]

I can only speak for my self and not entire Pakistani nation. Every one is responsible for his or her actions. Before pointing finger on others one must try to improve himself.
Lawyers do not criticize courts decisions they are criticizing personalities such as present Chief Justice for taking oath under PCO. This is different. One can criticize and express his or her views but criticizing courts decisions or for that matter constitutional institutions decisions is not freedom of expression. They have authority and have exercised it. Simple as that.

As far as your statement about our actions and correcting oneself first, I totally agree with your point of view. One is first responsible for himself, before he can point fingers at someone else.
Now as far as the lawyers are concerned, it is my opinion they are being paid to protest, and the details I really dont want to get into, because I have already discussed it somewhere else on this forum. As far as the PCO is concerned the previous Chief Justice also took oath under the PCO and is only against President Musharraf only because his job is on the line. The only person out of all the lawyers who has the right to protest is Justice Wajihuddin. He has stood by his word and didn't even care for his job. If he did take oath under the PCO he would of been Chief Justice.

 

[mujahideen]

Also if I am not mistaken, "contempt of court" applies to those who are in the court and party to the case on hand. It does not apply to you, me or anyone else here who is not actively involved in the case. Nobody is showing disrespect for the judges, but there are people who disagree with the ruling...perfectly fine and within their right of self-expression under the Pakistani constitution.

Very well stated. It is not we are against the Supreme Court, but rather against its judgement or the law that has come into effect after its ruling.

 

[gnabi]

As far as your statement about our actions and correcting oneself first, I totally agree with your point of view. One is first responsible for himself, before he can point fingers at someone else.
Now as far as the lawyers are concerned, it is my opinion they are being paid to protest, and the details I really dont want to get into, because I have already discussed it somewhere else on this forum. As far as the PCO is concerned the previous Chief Justice also took oath under the PCO and is only against President Musharraf only because his job is on the line. The only person out of all the lawyers who has the right to protest is Justice Wajihuddin. He has stood by his word and didn't even care for his job. If he did take oath under the PCO he would of been Chief Justice.

I totally agree with you regarding the CJ and we all know the decisions the current CJ took. I feel the reason for these demonstrations has been the growing frustration on the price hike, the looting by the ex government and the lack of availability of justice. People came out and gave their verdict. The new government is in place and if it does not deliver I think a revolution is in the offing.

 

[ejaz007]

Contempt of court does not imply to those actually involved in the case or party to the case. It implieson on all Pakistani citizens.

Supreme Court rules regarding this are as follows:

PROCEEDING IN RELATION TO THE CONTEMPT OF COURT

1. The Court may take cognizance of its contempt suo motu or on a petition by any person:

Provided that where the alleged contempt consists of willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of the Court or a breach of an undertaking given to the Court or a Judge in Chambers, the Court may take cognizance suo motu or on a petition by the aggrieved person.

2. A petition for proceedings under this Order shall be registered as original petition and the provisions of Order VI Part I shall apply as nearly as may be.

3. The petition shall state succinctly and clearly all relevant facts constituting the contempt of the Court and shall be supported by affidavit of the petitioner, if any.

4. Notice of the petition along with the statement of allegations and affidavit, if any, shall be served on the person complained against hereinafter called the respondent. The notice shall require the respondent to appear in person and unless the Court otherwise directs, he shall appear on each subsequent hearing and, if so required, shall enter into recognizance with one or more sureties.

5. Where the alleged contempt consists of willful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the Court or a breach of an undertaking given to the Court or a Judge in Chambers by a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 or a statutory corporation or a partnership firm, the notice shall be served upon each director or partner as the case may be, and such other person who at the time of alleged contempt were incharge of or responsible for the conduct of the company, corporation or firm as the case may be.

6. Where the Court is satisfied by an affidavit or otherwise, that the respondent is avoiding service, it may direct issuance of bail able or non-bail able warrants for his arrest.

7. (1) Where the contempt consists of words or acts of visible signs which tend to prejudice a party to a proceeding before the Court or tend to scandalize the Court or any Judge or otherwise tend to bring the Court or a Judge in relation to his office into hatred, ridicule or contempt, the matter shall, in the first instance, be placed before the Chief Justice and such Judges as the Chief Justice may nominated to consider the expediency or propriety of taking action in the matter.

(2) If the Chief Justice and the Judges referred to in sub-rule (I) decide that action should be taken in the matter, a notice of the proceedings shall issue to the Attorney-General who shall in that event be under a duty to conduct the proceedings.

8. (1) The respondent shall, on the first hearing, file a written statement in answer to the allegations against him and shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence.

(2) No oath shall be administered to the respondent unless he chooses to appear as his own witness.

9. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Order, where the contempt is committed in the face of the Court or a Judge in chambers, the Court or the Judge, as the case may be, may proceed forthwith to determine the guilt of the respondent and award him punishment under the law.

10. If at any time during the pendency of the proceedings under this Order or thereafter but before the execution of the sentence, the respondent tenders unqualified apology, the Court may consider such apology and make such order as it considers fit.

11. The Court may award such costs as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. The costs if any, shall be recovered as fine under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

 

[ejaz007]

Mujahideen,

Your statement that you are not againts Supreme Court but against its judgement is a strange one. What are you trying to say.

If you do not agree with an institutions judgements than how can you say that you are not against the institution.

 

[mujahideen]

I totally agree with you regarding the CJ and we all know the decisions the current CJ took. I feel the reason for these demonstrations has been the growing frustration on the price hike, the looting by the ex government and the lack of availability of justice. People came out and gave their verdict. The new government is in place and if it does not deliver I think a revolution is in the offing.

Well said. I dont think anyone sypathizes with the Chief Justice. Everyone in Pakistan knows how corrupt our judiciary was, is and will be. People were upset because of inflation. price hike, law and order situation. And I agree with you unless this new government cleans up this mess, they will meet the same fate at the next elections as the previous government.

 

[mujahideen]

Your statement that you are not againts Supreme Court but against its judgement is a strange one. What are you trying to say.
If you do not agree with an institutions judgements than how can you say that you are not against the institution.

This is one judgement out of many that I have critized. I have not critized every single judgement. We as citizens have the right to critize our institutions. These people are public servents and we as the public reserve the right to critize them when we feel it is necessary. In every single case their are people who disagree with the verdict and thus critize the ruling. Just because they critize the verdict doesn't mean they are against the institution. I bet they next time they have a problem they will go back to the same institution. If they were against it then their would be no need to go back. You, me and all of us have the right to critize our public officials. They work for us, and they are directly responsible to us.

 

[Contrarian]

You can disagree with the judgement, that is the basis for democracy. However disagreeing with the judgement does not mean you will not follow it. Not following a judgement would be illegal. Criticizing the SC is allowed and is part and parcel of being a democractic country.

 

[Xeric]

This is a stupid thread and should be closed immediately.

I don't know what is the problem with these people who are commenting on a decision given by the superior court of Pakistan. The decision by Supreme Court is not given on the basis of likes or dislikes but on the basis of law and constitution of the Pakistan and this amendment introduced by Mr. Musharaf clearly is in violation of the constitution. Only people unaware of the constituion of Pakistan are commenting on this thread.

The constitution clearly provides a level playing field for all citizens of Pakistan to contest election for the seat of provincial or national assembly. All citizens of Pakistan have right to contest election and education is not a criteria for that.

Any one care to tell me which former Prime Ministers of Pakistan were or are illiterate.

okay...well u first tell me how many phDs have been PM or president of this country..??? and also lemme knw wht benefits our poor ppl r getting coz of this so called "leveled playing field." can Phatu khan who may b an MSc compete in any election with his empty pockets... konsi leveled field bhai..?? atleast this degree restriction was first step to motivate or compel (yes this is the right word) our politicians to start acquiring better education...otherwise we will keep on producing leaders like nawaz n zardari....
keep the army out from Mush...for a while...n also keep the "bad" things tht his leadership brought to our country n tell me didnt his education n grooming was a leading factor for his success atleast out Pak..(il not debated of within Pak) isnt coz of him tht today atleast ppl knw tht theres a country known as Pak...i m currently on a foriegn course with many other country's nationals...all of them ....mind it all of them praise him....they may not praise his policies..but they did praise his leadership, professionalism and his well read brain.....
a well read brain is a sharp brain....
if u think this is wrong..why ppl get higher edu n why all the leading multi-national companies pick the best out of best students.....
just coz they knw if he is well read ..if he was sharp enuff to sail through the hardships of "study" tomorow he can deliver something guud for the company....coz they knw his "brain" works....he has the capability to make use of it...as shown by his edu record....warna dull ppl like nawaz n zardri n many others would b our future...

......as Rabri devi (lalu parshad.......now i can see some bells ringing..ya i knw u knw her now) after becoming a minister when asked by a journalist tht how long u gonna remain the ministers replied..."ji jab tak 'wo' kahay gay rahagy hum minishter....."
one more thing mera bhai this is an dicussion forum u knw it better coz u r an old member ..dont just say this is a "stupid" thread....

 

[ejaz007]

enigma947,
What I said and perhaps you did not get it completely was that constitution provides a level playing field to all citizens of Pakistan. If an ordinary citizen is not able to contest elections that is because of the expenses associated with the election. This is unfortunate but a reality we have to live with. Even in countries like USA a common person can not even dream to contest election unless he has the backing of his party or some wealthy people. This is not constitutions fault but ours. There is no need to go into details of the pros and cons of this.
As far as Mr. Musharaf being popular in the world and hailed as a great leader by world powers. This is simply because he has danced to their tone rather than to Pakistan's interests. Americans like him because he has fullfiled their dreams with utmost loyalty and disgracing Pakistani laws and constitution. Indians like him because of him Kashmir policy is in real mess. His soo many suggestions and policy shifts have left Pakistan wondering what actual policy on Kashmir is. His policy shift were in fact so quick that even Indian government found it difficult to comment because they were not sure which Kashmir policy they ought to comment and which one not. While he has walked half the way Indians are still standing where they were sixty years ago. Now the only options left is either to walk the other way too or simply go back to where things were.
I can keep on commenting on his wrongs entire days and believe me they wont end but I think this is not the topic of the thread.
Coming to the topic please do remember once likes or dislikes are an entirely different thing but once a verdict is given by the court than one has to follow it. Things don't always happen the way one likes them to happen.