Parliament cannot legislate against constitution, Islam: CJ
- Thread starter Hyperion
- Start date
lol what a logic!!
if there are 60% votes which are bogus, then the assemblies are not bogus? you really need to be a bit more logical to fool the people around. and I know PTI is very good in it.
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
sorry to tell,thats pti & imran they are the ones telling pakistanis about 60% bogus regesterd votes!
i havent seen anyother political party , SAYING THAT, or claiming that?
if its true, then it would be from very begaining right? & the peoples who ever got elected before, were all been elected with bogus votes?
so who ever took part & made legislation were all , ON BOGUS VOTES!
so basicly our constitution , is a bogus constitution because its , creators were bogus?
PTI is a political party , whats wrong in giving thier refernces?
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
And did this current bogus assembly make the constitution???
Secondly, if the assembly is bogus, then government is also bogus?
Thirdly, did anyone say that the assembly is bogus because the votes were bogus?
Bogus votes were cast, but that does not mean that the assembly is completely bogus, unless all the votes were bogus.
Any other party is not saying this because 'is hamam main sab hi nangay hain'. i.e every party is in assembly through some means of cheating.
You have to go to a interior sindh or Multan polling station to know that.
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
so are you saying that , every other political party is cheater because they are in the parliment?
& PTI is the only one , wearing cloths?
dont you forget, imran was once a part of this parliment too, so that means he got elected also with 60% of bogus votes?
also you dont want , to let peoples from multan & interior sindh to vote in elections?
any way, its not the work of any CJ in the world to keep kicking out elected representatives, & try to run its own shadow govt!
its not his duty to interfare legeslation any way , at anytime!
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
Flawed short order — Yasser Latif Hamdani
As for the question of who is the longest serving prime minister of the country, actual reality, not legal fiction determines that
The Cabinet Mission Plan, which was accepted by both Congress and Muslim League in May of 1946, was a rare glimmer of hope for the resolution of all outstanding disputes between the two major parties of the subcontinent and for a while, it seemed that India was headed towards a federal future, which was to the liking of all stakeholders. Unfortunately, what followed was a disastrous miscalculation on the part of the Congress Party, ironically against better counsel from its own president, Maulana Azad. It centered on the interpretation of the grouping clause of the formula. The formula provided group federations A, B and C, which each consisted of certain provinces, with freedom of opting out from a federation. The position of the Cabinet Mission was that this opting out could happen only after the first elections. That was the interpretation the Muslim League also accepted. Congress however insisted that opting out actually meant that provinces could choose not to be part of a group federation ab initio, a position which was counter-productive to the whole exercise. In a bid to resolve the crisis, Viceroy Lord Wavell held a separate meeting with Congress stalwarts, Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi and Nehru argued, without realising the irony of their position, that it was not what the Cabinet Mission thought the plan meant but what they interpreted the plan to mean that counted. Flabbergasted, Wavell is reported to have said, “Gentlemen don’t talk to me as lawyers but as reasonable men,” to which Gandhi and Nehru, who other than their training in law had very little to do with the practice of law, responded with one voice: “But we are lawyers!” The rest, as they say, is history.
Tragically, the events of recent months in our country owed their traumatic birth to the aforementioned misplaced legal sophistry in a political realm. That has once again shown what happens when lawyers — in this case lawyers elevated to the benches of the highest court in the land — choose to interpret documents in a way that suits them instead of taking a document in the spirit in which it was drafted. Of course, this is part of what being a lawyer is about and this is what lawyers are paid for while representing their clients. These are tactics to be employed strategically to the best advantage of one’s client. Statesmen have no such luxury because the greater interests of a whole people depend on the steps they take. Similarly, judges, once elevated from their status as lawyers, are duty bound to proceed according to the spirit of the constitution and to attach the most direct and logical meaning to constitutional provisions. In the view of this writer, the Supreme Court has resorted to blatant legal sophistry in both the way it has dealt with the contempt case and now the disqualification of Pakistan’s unanimously elected, longest serving Prime Minister, Mr. Yousaf Raza Gilani. As Justice Katju, formerly of the Indian Supreme Court, wrote in his precise opinion that the Supreme Court should not have overruled 248(2) and asked the prime minister to write a letter to a foreign authority to initiate proceedings against the President of the republic, which is absolutely barred by the constitution of this republic in clearest terms.
The Supreme Court did this again when it overreached and overturned the Speaker’s ruling against reference to the Election Commission for disqualification of Mr Gilani as a member of the National Assembly. The language of the constitution is quite clear in this matter. The Speaker is the keeper of the national conscience and the power vested in that office was to be a safety valve against the judiciary treading on legislative space. The order in question imputes redundancy to Article 63(2) of the Constitution and that is not all that it does. It introduces the new doctrine of automatic disqualification. This is obviously the most dangerous outcome of this opinion because it means, in essence, that automatic disqualifications can occur at any time. The door has been opened to the judiciary deciding who is and who is not automatically disqualified. It therefore makes Article 69 of the Constitution redundant as well and means that justices sitting in the Supreme Court can decide who is to be the chief executive of the country. The order in question therefore is Pakistan’s version of Bush v Gore 531 US 98 (2000). That judgment is infamous for underscoring the failure of the US constitutional system and of course, the world has had to live with the consequences.
Many have hailed this order as an example of Pakistan’s ability to deal with a constitutional crisis in a legal way without a breakdown via an army coup. This is an unfortunate assertion. The problem with military coups is not that the military is carrying it out but that a coup subverts the constitutional and democratic process in the country. It does not matter if the colour of one’s uniform is khaki or black. The basic feature of Pakistani constitution is the separation of powers. This means that in their respective spheres the executive, legislative and judicial arms have to remain separate, unfettered and independent. This applies equally to an executive infringing judicial independence and the judiciary impeding the constitutional democratic process. With respect to the honourable Supreme Court therefore, and it is hard to muster such respect in light of the recent events, one is forced to conclude that the short order was partisan and is a major setback to democracy.
The future historian will no doubt look back and conclude in favour of the righteousness of Mr Gilani’s position. As for the question of who is the longest serving prime minister of the country, actual reality and not legal fiction determines that. The Pakistan People’s Party and its prime minister have demonstrated statesmanship of the highest order in accepting, despite reservations, the Supreme Court’s decree. For this, they deserve to be lauded generously.
The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://globallegalorum.blogspot and his twitter handle is @therealylh
As for the question of who is the longest serving prime minister of the country, actual reality, not legal fiction determines that
The Cabinet Mission Plan, which was accepted by both Congress and Muslim League in May of 1946, was a rare glimmer of hope for the resolution of all outstanding disputes between the two major parties of the subcontinent and for a while, it seemed that India was headed towards a federal future, which was to the liking of all stakeholders. Unfortunately, what followed was a disastrous miscalculation on the part of the Congress Party, ironically against better counsel from its own president, Maulana Azad. It centered on the interpretation of the grouping clause of the formula. The formula provided group federations A, B and C, which each consisted of certain provinces, with freedom of opting out from a federation. The position of the Cabinet Mission was that this opting out could happen only after the first elections. That was the interpretation the Muslim League also accepted. Congress however insisted that opting out actually meant that provinces could choose not to be part of a group federation ab initio, a position which was counter-productive to the whole exercise. In a bid to resolve the crisis, Viceroy Lord Wavell held a separate meeting with Congress stalwarts, Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi and Nehru argued, without realising the irony of their position, that it was not what the Cabinet Mission thought the plan meant but what they interpreted the plan to mean that counted. Flabbergasted, Wavell is reported to have said, “Gentlemen don’t talk to me as lawyers but as reasonable men,” to which Gandhi and Nehru, who other than their training in law had very little to do with the practice of law, responded with one voice: “But we are lawyers!” The rest, as they say, is history.
Tragically, the events of recent months in our country owed their traumatic birth to the aforementioned misplaced legal sophistry in a political realm. That has once again shown what happens when lawyers — in this case lawyers elevated to the benches of the highest court in the land — choose to interpret documents in a way that suits them instead of taking a document in the spirit in which it was drafted. Of course, this is part of what being a lawyer is about and this is what lawyers are paid for while representing their clients. These are tactics to be employed strategically to the best advantage of one’s client. Statesmen have no such luxury because the greater interests of a whole people depend on the steps they take. Similarly, judges, once elevated from their status as lawyers, are duty bound to proceed according to the spirit of the constitution and to attach the most direct and logical meaning to constitutional provisions. In the view of this writer, the Supreme Court has resorted to blatant legal sophistry in both the way it has dealt with the contempt case and now the disqualification of Pakistan’s unanimously elected, longest serving Prime Minister, Mr. Yousaf Raza Gilani. As Justice Katju, formerly of the Indian Supreme Court, wrote in his precise opinion that the Supreme Court should not have overruled 248(2) and asked the prime minister to write a letter to a foreign authority to initiate proceedings against the President of the republic, which is absolutely barred by the constitution of this republic in clearest terms.
The Supreme Court did this again when it overreached and overturned the Speaker’s ruling against reference to the Election Commission for disqualification of Mr Gilani as a member of the National Assembly. The language of the constitution is quite clear in this matter. The Speaker is the keeper of the national conscience and the power vested in that office was to be a safety valve against the judiciary treading on legislative space. The order in question imputes redundancy to Article 63(2) of the Constitution and that is not all that it does. It introduces the new doctrine of automatic disqualification. This is obviously the most dangerous outcome of this opinion because it means, in essence, that automatic disqualifications can occur at any time. The door has been opened to the judiciary deciding who is and who is not automatically disqualified. It therefore makes Article 69 of the Constitution redundant as well and means that justices sitting in the Supreme Court can decide who is to be the chief executive of the country. The order in question therefore is Pakistan’s version of Bush v Gore 531 US 98 (2000). That judgment is infamous for underscoring the failure of the US constitutional system and of course, the world has had to live with the consequences.
Many have hailed this order as an example of Pakistan’s ability to deal with a constitutional crisis in a legal way without a breakdown via an army coup. This is an unfortunate assertion. The problem with military coups is not that the military is carrying it out but that a coup subverts the constitutional and democratic process in the country. It does not matter if the colour of one’s uniform is khaki or black. The basic feature of Pakistani constitution is the separation of powers. This means that in their respective spheres the executive, legislative and judicial arms have to remain separate, unfettered and independent. This applies equally to an executive infringing judicial independence and the judiciary impeding the constitutional democratic process. With respect to the honourable Supreme Court therefore, and it is hard to muster such respect in light of the recent events, one is forced to conclude that the short order was partisan and is a major setback to democracy.
The future historian will no doubt look back and conclude in favour of the righteousness of Mr Gilani’s position. As for the question of who is the longest serving prime minister of the country, actual reality and not legal fiction determines that. The Pakistan People’s Party and its prime minister have demonstrated statesmanship of the highest order in accepting, despite reservations, the Supreme Court’s decree. For this, they deserve to be lauded generously.
The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://globallegalorum.blogspot and his twitter handle is @therealylh
Hyperion
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 12,564
- Reaction score
- 26
- Country
- Location
Only if........ democracy was dependent upon statistics...... It works like this: BLA BLA BLAAAA,....heck.... why am I even trying? 
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
yousuf Raza Gilani's sacking is bad news for Pakistan
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...stice-pakistan?cat=commentisfree&type=article
Pakistan's judiciary is starting to care less for the rule of law than the sound of its own sermonising voice. Which suits the military
In the past, Pakistan's supreme court has hanged an elected prime minister on trumped-up charges, sentenced another to life imprisonment and forced several career politicians into exile. So the disqualification of the prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on contempt-of-court charges should be seen as a step forward. Nobody died, right? The Pakistan Peoples' party and its coalition partners now have another prime minister in the shape of Raja Pervez Ashraf. Pakistan's supreme court will thump its chest and say we have proved that the law is the same for a commoner and a king. Pakistan's all-powerful army will say: look, no hands. So why are Pakistan's human rights activists calling it a judicial coup and warning us that the whole democratic facade is about to be pulled down?
Political decisions used to be made in the Pakistani army's HQ. But the action has shifted to court one of the supreme court, in full view of the public, with judgments framed and delivered like soundbites for the primetime news.
Since being restored to his job after being sacked by President Musharraf in 2009, the chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, has been betraying an evangelical streak in his pronouncements. Maybe he feels that, with a country full of self-righteous zealots, he needs to adapt their tone. Or perhaps he is one. He doesn't wait for the petitioners to come to the court, he watches TV and acts on his own cognizance. Even the half of Pakistan that can't read or write will tell you what a suo motu is. We have already been quoted Khalil Jibran and the Persian poet Hafiz, and, it seems, a verse from the Qur'an or a hadith is only ever a suo motu notice away. When the chief justice took suo motu notice of allegations of his own son's corruption he turned up in court waving a copy of the Qur'an and insinuating comparisons with himself and the second caliph, Umar. Last year the chief justice took suo motu notice against the country's most famous television actress for possessing a bottle of wine. Elsewhere, one of his sidekicks wondered aloud that if one day Pakistan's parliament were to legalise gay marriages, would the supreme court sit quietly and watch?
This court is not as much in love with the rule of law as with the sound of its own sermonising voice. It has also mastered the art of selective justice. The same supreme court that has been sitting on an ISI corruption case for 15 years, the same judiciary that can't look a retired general in the eye or force a serving colonel to appear in court, feels it perfectly constitutional to send a unanimously elected prime minister home.
There are not many tears being shed over Gilani. Looking at his record, many would say that he should have stayed home in the first place. But what is the point of clamouring for democracy if we can't elect imperfect people – slightly less competent and way more corrupt than our average traffic cop – to lead us?
There are many ways of getting rid of a prime minister (though the old-fashioned way of voting them out has never been tried in Pakistan) but no simple way of telling the country's highest judge, restored to his job as a result of a popular movement, that he has begun to sound like that dictator who sent him home.
In Pakistan, generals often confuse access to private golf courses with the country's security. Senior bureaucrats consider it their right to name roads and villages after their grandfathers. Mullahs always fall back on God to justify their greed. Political leaders believe that democracy makes it mandatory to groom sons and daughters to take over their political parties. It's not surprising that senior judges have started to believe that respect for them is the same thing as respect for the rule of law.
Pakistanis are being forced to choose between Gilani's right to rule without doing a thing for his people, and a supreme court judge's right to send him home. And people are refusing to choose. For a few days the country lacked a prime minister and a cabinet. And nobody really missed them.
The alarm being raised by pro-democracy people in Pakistan is that the whole system is about to be derailed. The supreme court's reckless pursuit of government politicians could pave the way for a caretaker setup that will suit the military establishment.
The military, indeed, sulking after a series of humiliations at home and abroad, is watching from the sidelines. Some would say it's even gloating at the prospect of civilian institutions cutting each other down to size, traditionally its job.
There was a time in Pakistan when people joked: why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge? Now you can't buy them because they are too busy shopping for a place in history.
A bit harsh to PAKARMY but still, very good about our judiciary & our politicians, with very close view of our. CJs actions & intentions in the future to come?
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...stice-pakistan?cat=commentisfree&type=article
Pakistan's judiciary is starting to care less for the rule of law than the sound of its own sermonising voice. Which suits the military
In the past, Pakistan's supreme court has hanged an elected prime minister on trumped-up charges, sentenced another to life imprisonment and forced several career politicians into exile. So the disqualification of the prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on contempt-of-court charges should be seen as a step forward. Nobody died, right? The Pakistan Peoples' party and its coalition partners now have another prime minister in the shape of Raja Pervez Ashraf. Pakistan's supreme court will thump its chest and say we have proved that the law is the same for a commoner and a king. Pakistan's all-powerful army will say: look, no hands. So why are Pakistan's human rights activists calling it a judicial coup and warning us that the whole democratic facade is about to be pulled down?
Political decisions used to be made in the Pakistani army's HQ. But the action has shifted to court one of the supreme court, in full view of the public, with judgments framed and delivered like soundbites for the primetime news.
Since being restored to his job after being sacked by President Musharraf in 2009, the chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, has been betraying an evangelical streak in his pronouncements. Maybe he feels that, with a country full of self-righteous zealots, he needs to adapt their tone. Or perhaps he is one. He doesn't wait for the petitioners to come to the court, he watches TV and acts on his own cognizance. Even the half of Pakistan that can't read or write will tell you what a suo motu is. We have already been quoted Khalil Jibran and the Persian poet Hafiz, and, it seems, a verse from the Qur'an or a hadith is only ever a suo motu notice away. When the chief justice took suo motu notice of allegations of his own son's corruption he turned up in court waving a copy of the Qur'an and insinuating comparisons with himself and the second caliph, Umar. Last year the chief justice took suo motu notice against the country's most famous television actress for possessing a bottle of wine. Elsewhere, one of his sidekicks wondered aloud that if one day Pakistan's parliament were to legalise gay marriages, would the supreme court sit quietly and watch?
This court is not as much in love with the rule of law as with the sound of its own sermonising voice. It has also mastered the art of selective justice. The same supreme court that has been sitting on an ISI corruption case for 15 years, the same judiciary that can't look a retired general in the eye or force a serving colonel to appear in court, feels it perfectly constitutional to send a unanimously elected prime minister home.
There are not many tears being shed over Gilani. Looking at his record, many would say that he should have stayed home in the first place. But what is the point of clamouring for democracy if we can't elect imperfect people – slightly less competent and way more corrupt than our average traffic cop – to lead us?
There are many ways of getting rid of a prime minister (though the old-fashioned way of voting them out has never been tried in Pakistan) but no simple way of telling the country's highest judge, restored to his job as a result of a popular movement, that he has begun to sound like that dictator who sent him home.
In Pakistan, generals often confuse access to private golf courses with the country's security. Senior bureaucrats consider it their right to name roads and villages after their grandfathers. Mullahs always fall back on God to justify their greed. Political leaders believe that democracy makes it mandatory to groom sons and daughters to take over their political parties. It's not surprising that senior judges have started to believe that respect for them is the same thing as respect for the rule of law.
Pakistanis are being forced to choose between Gilani's right to rule without doing a thing for his people, and a supreme court judge's right to send him home. And people are refusing to choose. For a few days the country lacked a prime minister and a cabinet. And nobody really missed them.
The alarm being raised by pro-democracy people in Pakistan is that the whole system is about to be derailed. The supreme court's reckless pursuit of government politicians could pave the way for a caretaker setup that will suit the military establishment.
The military, indeed, sulking after a series of humiliations at home and abroad, is watching from the sidelines. Some would say it's even gloating at the prospect of civilian institutions cutting each other down to size, traditionally its job.
There was a time in Pakistan when people joked: why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge? Now you can't buy them because they are too busy shopping for a place in history.
A bit harsh to PAKARMY but still, very good about our judiciary & our politicians, with very close view of our. CJs actions & intentions in the future to come?
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
I wasn't talking about any constitution or specific laws, but the basic concept of a three-way balance between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. That system has worked well basically unchanged for centuries.
As an aside, it also brings up the reason why I favor the American presidential system over the British parliamentary system. The executive should be elected directly by the citizens as an independent check on the legislative branch. It should not be appointed by the latter. In fact, in the US, people often vote specifically with this balance in mind: if they vote one party's candidate for the POTUS, they will explicitly vote the opposing party's candidate for Congress.
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Sir in whole world it is supreme court who decides and how to interpret constitution they are the one who decide it so first know what happens in the world than talk sir
yes it is their duty
Mr he didn't brought CJ and for your information he was asking Gillani to write letter to swiss authorities and to give the money back which belongs to Pakistan
Mav3rick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,946
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Just a quick question......if the Parliament one day decides to make the president 'King, ruler and owner' of the country as per their merit of mandated power, who would be able to stop the atrocity? Whenever faced with danger, Roman senate would entrust 1 person as the military leader, the last person that was bestowed the power never returned it and you know him as Julias Ceasar.
If power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely. There has to be a check and balance in every system. Another question, if the parliament decides that more then 1 marriage would not be allowed.....should that be allowed to hold?
People of Pakistan and supporters of Judiciary on these matters are not anti-Zardari per se, I mean who is Zardari to the people of Pakistan? We are against a severely corrupt and incompetent Pakistani who has been involved in every crime that makes money....money that belonged to Pakistanis. Incidentally, the Pakistani happens to be Zardari, nobody has any personal enmity with him or do we?
Besides, was it not the sole idea of immunity for President to protect him from innocent mistakes that he/she may commit in the course of his service? Or was the immunity meant to protect the corruption and incompetence of Presidents?
You have also stated that actions of SC are detrimental to Pakistans interests.....my friend pray tell, what acts of this Government have been beneficial?
Every pillar of our country has corruption embedded deeply to the core. I am not very positive of the past of this CJ either, however its his current actions that I support. Matter of fact, I would support if the CJ brings in the military for implementation of SC's orders as per article 190.
Elimination of corruption has to begin somewhere, perhaps the SC is the perfect source?
rubyjackass
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Notice how the writer wants the constitution to be taken in spirit.
I agree with the contents of this paragraph. The contempt case ruling was unconstitutional and should have been appealed.
Section 63(1g) of Pakistan's constitution says:
Section 63(2) says:
Given the premise that Gilani was convicted of contempt, he has to be disqualified by the Speaker himself. Now the petitioner pleaded before the court that the Speaker acted against the spirit of the constitution by not disqualifying Gilani, which is true. Gilani's disqualification criterion is clearly in the list and the The Speaker who "is the keeper of the national conscience" failed to perform his duty. He acted against the spirit of the constitution. Hence the SC had to take action. In deciding on the disqualification petition, neither the Speaker nor the SC bench should look into the details of the contempt case. Such revisionism is even more harmful for the judicial process. Once we agree on this, the SC's ruling of automatic disqualification seems correct.
This writer is remarkable. He cannot resist bringing in Indian leaders and Jinnah in every article. His anecdote says Gandhi and Nehru were not speaking their mind and were acting like lawyers. But the man in the scene who historians attach this trait to is none other than Jinnah himself. Nobody ever knew what the man thought.
Hyde
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 20,543
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
I think now the matter has been very clear. CJ' statement was taken out of context.
There has been rumours appearing in the media since last 2 days that the government is trying to dissolve the existing Judiciary by reducing her powers and bringing her under the shadow of Provincial government. What that means is there will be 4 Supreme Courts in Pakistan for 4 provinces and I think what that means is they will not be able to intervene in the state affairs. They already did the similar thing with the Higher Education Commission when they were refusing to verify the fake degrees of MNA's.
So I think the Chief Justice meant to say that the parliament cannot legislate against the constitution and the parliament has no right to introduce such bills that clashes with the existing constitution.
There has been rumours appearing in the media since last 2 days that the government is trying to dissolve the existing Judiciary by reducing her powers and bringing her under the shadow of Provincial government. What that means is there will be 4 Supreme Courts in Pakistan for 4 provinces and I think what that means is they will not be able to intervene in the state affairs. They already did the similar thing with the Higher Education Commission when they were refusing to verify the fake degrees of MNA's.
So I think the Chief Justice meant to say that the parliament cannot legislate against the constitution and the parliament has no right to introduce such bills that clashes with the existing constitution.
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Sir their is some fundamental rules on which whole constitution is based in Pakistan it is that no law can be made against Quran and Sunnah or which is not in terms with Quran and Sunnah that is what CJ was saying
Hyde
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 20,543
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
sir i did not disagree to that.. i was talking about the first part 'constitution' while you are referring to the second part... 'Islam'
Similar threads
