Parliament cannot legislate against constitution, Islam: CJ

[SamantK]

It can do- lets for example say that a political party ABC wants to end the role of intervention of Army in politics. so it can amend the Constitution- It can only achieve it when it has the mandate from the people to do so- the Judges would give a decision in its favour- even if petition is filed against the legislation cause its the will of the people and people have given mandate to the ruling party for that sort of amendment-

Hmmm, you say now that Judges have to give a decision on the amendments of law?

First things first, Judiciary is only responsible for enforcing the law and constitution, they cannot and should not decide where and how it gets shaped..

Secondly, since when a court can decided whether an amendment suites the constitution or not? After all the 'constitution' was written by a set of people representative of the people of the land.. it is within the right of the legislature to change it as and when they want to since they are the representative of the people of the same land..

“I can say with utmost respect that they cannot legislate any law repugnant to the Constitution and injunctions of Islam and contrary to fundamental laws,”

This statement is a very unfortunate one coming form the Chief Justice

 

[Pakistanisage]

And here we go again:
First came the military who thought they ran the legislative.
Now come the courts.And we can repeat this over and over again.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s top judge has said that the Parliament cannot legislate any law repugnant to Constitution, injunctions of Islam and contrary to fundamental laws.

“If such law is promulgated, Supreme Court under its power of Judicial Review can review it. The underlying object of judicial review is to check abuse of power by public functionaries and ensuring just and fair treatment to citizens in accordance with law and constitutional norms.”

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry was speaking to a 50-member delegation of Youth Parliament on Saturday at the Supreme Court Building in Islamabad.

The CJ said: “The system in our country is parliamentary system. From 1973 onward there have been National Assemblies and Senate but on account of Constitutional turmoil time and again there had been intervention in Parliamentary System, therefore, the expectations of people attached with Parliament could not be fulfilled. Parliament is required to give laws in accordance with Constitution for betterment of public at large so that laws can be made applicable.”

“I can say with utmost respect that they cannot legislate any law repugnant to the Constitution and injunctions of Islam and contrary to fundamental laws,” he added.

The CJ stressed that the Constitution is a complete document which answers all questions, adding that every organ of the State enjoys complete institutional independence within its constitutional domain, however, any excess or misuse of power beyond that domain becomes the subject matter of judicial scrutiny.

Speaking about fundamental rights, he said, where any question of public importance arises with reference to enforcement of any of Fundamental Rights ensured by the Constitution of Pakistan; then the Supreme Court has power to make any appropriate order for enforcement of these rights.

The law applies to all, irrespective of their status, power, caste, creed and religion. No one can claim supremacy over and above the law, the CJ added.

Parliament cannot legislate against constitution, Islam: CJ | DAWN.COM


By his take on things, we should start electing the lawyers in local kacheris - who can in-turn elect the new president i.e. the CJ.

What is this, a new budding dictatorship by proxy?

DAH. what planet are you from ?

That is the real purpose for every nation to have a Constitution, universally.

It is designed to prevent any legislative body to draw up legislation contrary to the Constitution.

The constitution is held Supreme worldwide. Nothing new here.

Without this restriction, legislators could create laws to make Murder, Rape and Theft Legal and there would be nothing preventing them from doing that.

Capische , Genius.

 

[SamantK]

It is designed to prevent any legislative body to draw up legislation contrary to the Constitution.

Constitution can be amended in any way dude.. please get you facts straight, it only needs certain conditions which are not very easy to achieve..

The constitution is held Supreme worldwide. Nothing new here.

Wrong again, the parliament is cause it is the representative of the people...

Without this restriction, legislators could create laws to make Murder, Rape and Theft Legal and there would be nothing preventing them from doing that.

It coukd but that would require a majority which is not possible, how do you expect people will vote for those @ssholes knowing this?

Capische , Genius.

Hahahahahah

 

[Pakistanisage]

Hmmm, you say now that Judges have to give a decision on the amendments of law?

First things first, Judiciary is only responsible for enforcing the law and constitution, they cannot and should not decide where and how it gets shaped..

Secondly, since when a court can decided whether an amendment suites the constitution or not? After all the 'constitution' was written by a set of people representative of the people of the land.. it is within the right of the legislature to change it as and when they want to since they are the representative of the people of the same land..
This statement is a very unfortunate one coming form the Chief Justice

I am amazed at the ignorance of indians like yourself who don't understand the meaning of the word DEMOCRACY.

In the USA , Congress cannot legislate laws that are contrary to the United Sates Constitution.

And who decides if a piece of legislation is unconstitutional.

It is the United States Supreme court, GENIUS.

 

[SamantK]

I am amazed at the ignorance of indians like yourself who don't understand the meaning of the word DEMOCRACY.

India is the biggest democracy mate, so you should be quoting India not US.

In the USA , Congress cannot legislate laws that are contrary to the United Sates Constitution.

Tell e then how is the constitution amended? If as you say there is a clause which restricts a particular amendment, are you saying that those clauses themselves cannot be changed? Please give me proof that they cannot be changed... You will find enough of those if it is true, I will eat my words..

And who decides if a piece of legislation is unconstitutional.

The SC but they also have to follow the constitution which can be changed..

It is the United States Supreme court, GENIUS.

 

[Hyperion]

Well, no need to be rude. Furthermore, making the font bigger and bolding it won't give your point any additional weightage!

Why not support your version of democracy with some legal citations?


Or maybe putting a picture of your political party may convince me otherwise - LMAO - Genius

DAH. what planet are you from ?

That is the real purpose for every nation to have a Constitution, universally.

It is designed to prevent any legislative body to draw up legislation contrary to the Constitution.

The constitution is held Supreme worldwide. Nothing new here.

Without this restriction, legislators could create laws to make Murder, Rape and Theft Legal and there would be nothing preventing them from doing that.

Capische , Genius.

 

[Meengla]

Did I not say SEVERAL TIMES in last few days that if this judiciary decides that 'Friday should be the weekend instead of Sunday' because of the 'Islamic' nature of Pakistani Constitution then there is NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT!!

Sorry, I had to yell. I have not even read above responses but I knew this judiciary has gone beserk and this statement that the' Parliament cannot legislate against Islam' proves me right!

Pakistani current judiciciary may be better or more 'mature' then the political classes but, given the long history of bunglings, political-alliances, mutual backstabbings, and outright stupidity on behalf of the Pakistani judiciary since 1954 I am not going to give them a blank check!

And all those zealots who are praising the judiciary for the ouster of Gilani---I hope they one day realize the folly they made.

 

[Meengla]

It is sad to see Indians--who have a very flawed democracy--rightly teach some of us Zealots Pakistanis about what a Constitution really means.
Let's take my rather simplistic example about Friday vs Sunday as the weekend. May be some one can take a poll on it here?

Here we go with the hypothetical question: The current Constitution of Pakistan makes it an Islamic Republic. One of the clauses says something like 'nothing can be a law against Islam'. Fine so far. But Friday is the sacred day for Muslims and indeed many Muslim countries follow that. So what if--and now the 'if' is not that far-fetched--the Supreme Court decides that weekend should be Friday. Whoever is in the govt. can try to say that it would mean losing potential international contacts/business (or whatever reasons) by making Friday instead of Sunday. The govt. can say that we have a Constitutional Clause which stipulates Sunday as the weekend.
But the Judiciary says: "No, your reasoning is not the right interpretation of the Constitution because the Const. is Islamic in nature'.

What will YOU say to that?
I am sure you guys will find short-cuts, like you did in case of Zardari's immunity. But if you had thought-through then you will realize that any three-member judicial bench which can sack a PM over 'interpreting' the Const. can do whatever it wants. Pakistan has too many of these Bonapartes--and lot from the judiciary, mind you. We need to strictly allow the supremacy of the Parliament. If they decide to elect Lucifer himself as the President then even that should be respected. That's just an extreme example, btw.

 

[batmannow]

I am amazed at the ignorance of indians like yourself who don't understand the meaning of the word DEMOCRACY.

In the USA , Congress cannot legislate laws that are contrary to the United Sates Constitution.

And who decides if a piece of legislation is unconstitutional.

It is the United States Supreme court, GENIUS.

So you mean , JFK ,s murder was been approved by SC of usa?
Or martian luther king ,s murder too?
Or what they, have done against stopping , of american killers killing innocent peoples around the world?
Or US SC went into looking in the electroral frud, in the elections between bush & algore?
It doesn't matter & US SC doesn't interfare matters regurding , american national intersts? Or its special intersts?
We living in the 3rd world, are very much imperesd by the rulling elites of this world, bt we allways forgets , its still LIONS for LAMBs , out there & hunting!
& its US constitution which gives powers to US president, CIA & other dark riders authority to do anything they, needed to do, US superme court never goes against its own govt? Right!

 

[Pakistanisage]

India is the biggest democracy mate, so you should be quoting India not US.

Correction, India is the world's biggest HYPOCRISY.

 

[Developereo]

What the CJ is saying is 100% correct. The Parliament is not supreme: it was never intended to be.

As Pakistanisage has said, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. The Parliament only has authority to make laws, which the SC can strike down at any time. This is also the reason why SC judges must never be held hostage to public opinion. As for constitutional amendments, they can be proposed and passed by the Parliament, but they, too, can be struck down by the SC if they are deemed to conflict with the existing Constitution, so amendments are not a backdoor to circumvent the Constitution. The only option would be to repeal existing clauses or replace them wholesale by a new one.

The examples of the US are instructive. On several occasions the SCOTUS has stepped in and put the brakes on the administration and Congress; that is precisely its role. The issue of drone strikes is also salient: the whole reason the US administration does not declare war on Pakistan is because such a declaration would be subject to the US Constitution. The current setup only uses UN resolutions which can be "interpreted" much more freely by the US administration.

Finally, the example of declaring Friday as the weekend highlights the problem with the vague wording of the Constitution not the system itself. What, exactly, is "Islamic"?

 

[Awesome]

And here we go again:
First came the military who thought they ran the legislative.
Now come the courts.
And we can repeat this over and over again.

Well it is obvious they can't. As per the norms, any sweeping changes in the constitution must be done through a constituent assembly.

The draft the amendment has to be submitted to the ECP, new elections need to be called out, they have to be re-voted into government, then they can change the assembly.

The current fundamental constitution came through a constituent assembly. That is the law. Current assembly is not a constituent assembly.

 

[Leader]

Hmmm, you say now that Judges have to give a decision on the amendments of law?

First things first, Judiciary is only responsible for enforcing the law and constitution, they cannot and should not decide where and how it gets shaped..

Secondly, since when a court can decided whether an amendment suites the constitution or not? After all the 'constitution' was written by a set of people representative of the people of the land.. it is within the right of the legislature to change it as and when they want to since they are the representative of the people of the same land..
This statement is a very unfortunate one coming form the Chief Justice

Yes- as I said it would be the demand of the people- popular decisions- you wouldnt be asking if you read the complete post.

 

[Awesome]

Let's be clear, elected people are not the supreme authority. The supreme authority is always the political sovereign - A majority among the nation.

Now this does not mean the elected representatives have the right to do whatever they want. They have the right to do their duties as mentioned within the constitution. We are not electing our supreme leaders or our kings we are electing public servants to do a job. Job description is in the Constitution.

So in hierarchy

Political sovereign (nation)
Constitution
On the same level: Executive (Cabinet), Legislative (Parliament), Judicial
Military is not even there - it has no say. None. But Media is sometimes considered a pseudo unofficial level but officially also no say.

 

[Awesome]

Here we go with the hypothetical question: The current Constitution of Pakistan makes it an Islamic Republic. One of the clauses says something like 'nothing can be a law against Islam'. Fine so far. But Friday is the sacred day for Muslims and indeed many Muslim countries follow that. So what if--and now the 'if' is not that far-fetched--the Supreme Court decides that weekend should be Friday. Whoever is in the govt. can try to say that it would mean losing potential international contacts/business (or whatever reasons) by making Friday instead of Sunday. The govt. can say that we have a Constitutional Clause which stipulates Sunday as the weekend.
But the Judiciary says: "No, your reasoning is not the right interpretation of the Constitution because the Const. is Islamic in nature'

First of all, you're trying to paint IC as some sort of Mullah, whereas the opposite is true.

The opposite may be true when the Hasba Bill was passed by the NWFP parliament, it was struck down by Supreme court for being unconstitutional by none other than Iftikhar Choudhary.

You can't change things that are fundamental to Islam like say declare Pakistanis must become Hindu from tomorrow.

There is no problem in making minor changes to clarify, specify or to elaborate on the existing constitution such as the Womens Protection Act that doesn't abolish the Hudood Ordinance just removes elements that were being used to punish the rape victim.

Laws can be removed - but you need a constituent assembly, declare the expected change, get re-elected, by the political sovereign and then, only then can you make a big change.