Parliament cannot legislate against constitution, Islam: CJ

[Hyde]

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.

Hasba bill is a great example to prove the meaning of CJ's statement. The NWFP parliament unanimously approved the Hasba bill but the Supreme Court rejected the supremacy of the so-called Parliament by disapproving the whole bill and throwing it in the gutter calling it unconstitutional.

I think the majority of members are not aware about the powers of the Supreme Court. Some of them needs to read the constitution of Pakistan...

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/

 

[Leader]

Lets avoid the academic discussion; and see what the new developments have taken place.

writing letter to Swiss shall resume on 27th of June.

The ruling party (read Aitzaz Ahsan has advised) to split the SC authority to provinces- that is make separate SCs for each province- and establish a constitutional supreme court in federal- and the existing SC at Federal would not be able to take constitutional and political cases-

for this amendment they require 2/3 majority. they got almost 61% with JUIF it would be 65% the number game is quite on-

on the other hand, lawyer bodies have decided to challenge any such measure taken by government to curtail the Supreme court.

Each Wednesday the boycott will begin of courts in support to SC- and rallies shall be conducted throughout Pakistan- and that a movement would be launched if any step taken against SC.

 

[Hyde]

Lets avoid the academic discussion; and see what the new developments have taken place.

writing letter to Swiss shall resume on 27th of June.

The ruling party (read Aitzaz Ahsan has advised) to split the SC authority to provinces- that is make separate SCs for each province- and establish a constitutional supreme court in federal- and the existing SC at Federal would not be able to take constitutional and political cases-

for this amendment they require 2/3 majority. they got almost 61% with JUIF it would be 65% the number game is quite on-

on the other hand, lawyer bodies have decided to challenge any such measure taken by government to curtail the Supreme court.

Each Wednesday the boycott will begin of courts in support to SC- and rallies shall be conducted throughout Pakistan- and that a movement would be launched if any step taken against SC.

This is not HEC (Higher Education Commission) where politicians can save their face by splitting it. This is Supreme Court of Pakistan and it is not a joke. I don't think PPP would want to do this suicide and I don't think there is any Supreme Court in the world that is brought to provincial level of stature. I think this is just a rumour as the PPP already knows they will not be able to save the face if the public started marching towards the President/Prime Minister house.

 

[Leader]

This is not HEC (Higher Education Commission) where politicians can save their face by splitting it. This is Supreme Court of Pakistan and it is not a joke. I don't think PPP would want to do this suicide and I don't think there is any Supreme Court in the world that is brought to provincial level of stature. I think this is just a rumour as the PPP already knows they will not be able to save the face if the public started marching towards the President/Prime Minister house.

So far they have proved otherwise- the PPP government has been in confrontation with the SC- they have not left a single chance to undermine Supreme court- be it through Media or defiance of orders- So I guess they will continue this path-

and If they went out for a full confrontation with SC- then its likely that this is what they wanted to happen.

 

[zip]

Rejecting the bill and constitutional amendments are different subject .. If i am not wrong this cl worked under military rule ..where was supreme court when army toppled constitutionally approved govt ?

 

[Hyde]

So far they have proved otherwise- the PPP government has been in confrontation with the SC- they have not left a single chance to undermine Supreme court- be it through Media or defiance of orders- So I guess they will continue this path-

and If they went out for a full confrontation with SC- then its likely that this is what they wanted to happen.

Sir as per the constitution SC is the final authority to decide between two Goverments (dispute between federal or provincial government or two provinces) and its verdict is the final authority. If SC was brought to provincial level there was no need of High courts in the country. This is just a rumour as bringing SC under the provincial governments is like changing the whole constitution upside down

73 ka aayen goes to dust and PPP will not be able to take credit of restoring the constitution as it will not remain the same constitution if this ever happens

 

[Awesome]

Rejecting the bill and constitutional amendments are different subject .. If i am not wrong this cl worked under military rule ..where was supreme court when army toppled constitutionally approved govt ?

In the current scenario they have decided not to support the military any more. In 1999 the situation was different people were tolerant to an idea of a coup and of course in a coup a gun has been held to your head.

 

[Leader]

Sir as per the constitution SC is the final authority to decide between two Goverments (dispute between federal or provincial government or two provinces) and its verdict is the final authority. If SC was brought to provincial level there was no need of High courts in the country. This is just a rumour as bringing SC under the provincial governments is like changing the whole constitution upside down

73 ka aayen goes to dust and PPP will not be able to take credit of restoring the constitution as it will not remain the same constitution if this ever happens

Quite possible- either way, they will workout confrontation- thats all Im saying-

Sir as per the constitution SC is the final authority to decide between two Goverments (dispute between federal or provincial government or two provinces) and its verdict is the final authority. If SC was brought to provincial level there was no need of High courts in the country. This is just a rumour as bringing SC under the provincial governments is like changing the whole constitution upside down

73 ka aayen goes to dust and PPP will not be able to take credit of restoring the constitution as it will not remain the same constitution if this ever happens

Quite possible- either way, they will workout confrontation- thats all Im saying-

 

[Leader]

New amendment proposes CJ

here is another aspect

what they are trying is to do impeachment through Senate, bypassing the Judicial Council as impeachment body-

This is clever-

 

[Meengla]

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.

Asim,
The matters related to Gilani sacking and the judicial-activism will remain my main bone of contention with you.

'Constituent Assembly'? Joking? May be in late 40's/early 50's there was a need but the Parliament of Pakistan, at least since 1973, are the legal so-called 'Constituent Assembly'.
Our Indian guests here are spot on in saying it is the Parliament which can enact laws as it sees fit. This 'Islamic' 'interpretation' by the CJP is extremely subjective, slippery-slope, and very personal legal course.

But... let's cut the crap and remove the cobwebs: A bunch of people here are so supportive of the, what I believe to be, judicial-overreach--is because the target is eventually Zardari. And it does not matter than the Constitution, whether fairly or not, gives Zardari the immunity. The 3-member neurotic bench of judges are being exposed for their political and ideological bias as we speak. And, no, the Hasba Bill was an extreme example. There were no takers for that even then. I stand by my statements that the judiciary has over-reached, is ideologically motivated, and its actions are detrimental to Pakistan's interests.

I am still not going to stoop to the level of accusing these judges of 'corruption'. I have no proof of that. But, given that Justice (and then President!!!) Tarar himself was involved in corruption to unseat the then CJP anything is possible.

 

[SamantK]

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

ok, but who is?

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.

sc is the interpreter but tell me something..

The conflicting amendments are to protect against Legislature overreach but cant they themselves be not amended? Wouldnt it mean laws made by people back in those days cannot be changed forever?

Correction, India is the world's biggest HYPOCRISY.

I do not care, seems you care much... good for us!

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

and how will the CJ decide on the demand of people, another voting in the entire Pakistan perhaps, do you know you sound very childish?

 

[Bratva]

No one the forum to counter my argument with some logical explanation that what's happening in Pakistan is wrong?

I'm unable to comprehend you and people opposing CJ actions... Guys don't you know what's written in the constitution? What does Judiciary means?

Judiciary = Enforcing laws and Constitution.

Pakistani Constitution = Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.


Now who says, Parliament is the people will and they are supreme? Where as the constituion says people of pakistan will only exercise what is allowed by Allah Almighty. Now does Allah Almighty allows people to do whatever our PM and President and PArliament is doing?



CJ Actions = Article 63...

(g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release; or

(h) he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, senteced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release; or

Pakistani Parliament = Instead of acting on constitution, they are clearly violating what is written in it. They allow a convict to run for 2 months. Now who is over stepping is Authority? Judiciary or Executive?

Final Result = Instead of crying and accusing of judiciary, go what is written in constitution and understand who is overstepping his authority, bring proof from constitution than Debate here that Judiciary is wrong... Instead of verbiage and emotional statements of no purpose.

 

[Developereo]

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.

Brilliantly stated! That sums it up.

ok, but who is?

No one is above the Constitution. That's the whole idea behind "a government of laws, not of men".

sc is the interpreter but tell me something..

The conflicting amendments are to protect against Legislature overreach but cant they themselves be not amended? Wouldnt it mean laws made by people back in those days cannot be changed forever?

The Constitution can be amended but the process is necessarily complex and lengthy. These things shouldn't be attempted lightly.

There will be cases where people will disagree with the SC and accuse it of overreach and activism. By its very nature, the SC focuses on the most controversial cases, so any decision will attract criticism. That is precisely why SC judges must be appointed for life and be immune from public pressure. People talk about "giving democracy a chance", and a similar admonition applies to the judicial branch. If you look around the world, people in many countries are absolutely furious at various SC decisions, but they understand that the courts must always remain sacrosanct.

Once you start disrespecting the Supreme Court, why would anybody respect lesser courts? That's the beginning of the end for rule of law.

 

[Hyperion]

Zakii, Do you know how similar the present 'judicial' situation in Pakistan is to the one in Turkey? Exactly same kind of activist courts existed here, with a highly self-serving modified-constitution (by the military in 80's).

The present AK Party... put everyone in their rightful place through 'constitutional amendments' - En masse! Five years ago, CJ of Turkey was king of the town. Now

Sir as per the constitution SC is the final authority to decide between two Goverments (dispute between federal or provincial government or two provinces) and its verdict is the final authority. If SC was brought to provincial level there was no need of High courts in the country. This is just a rumour as bringing SC under the provincial governments is like changing the whole constitution upside down

73 ka aayen goes to dust and PPP will not be able to take credit of restoring the constitution as it will not remain the same constitution if this ever happens

 

[SamantK]

No one is above the Constitution. That's the whole idea behind "a government of laws, not of men".

Laws which are written by men..

The Constitution can be amended but the process is necessarily complex and lengthy. These things shouldn't be attempted lightly.

There will be cases where people will disagree with the SC and accuse it of overreach and activism. By its very nature, the SC focuses on the most controversial cases, so any decision will attract criticism. That is precisely why SC judges must be appointed for life and be immune from public pressure. People talk about "giving democracy a chance", and a similar admonition applies to the judicial branch. If you look around the world, people in many countries are absolutely furious at various SC decisions, but they understand that the courts must always remain sacrosanct.

That is what I was trying to get a clear picture of, since you have said that the constitution can be changed however lengthy and complex it is. It re-affirms my conviction that SC can only rule against which is conflicting with the constitution but can never dictate if the consistution should be changed or not, which is the sole prerogative of the legislature.

Once you start disrespecting the Supreme Court, why would anybody respect lesser courts? That's the beginning of the end for rule of law.

that is true but then again, without proper intelligent debate we cannot go forward. We cannot ignore such important decisions by the Chief Justice because they will have far reaching effects not just now but in the future too..