Parliament cannot make law conflicting with Constitution: CJP

[Kabira]

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Mian Saqib Nisar has stressed that parliament cannot make a law which comes in conflict with the Constitution, saying the top court holds the right to review any legislation.

On Monday, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi strongly criticised the superior judiciary for labeling elected representatives as “thieves and looters” and also asked for a debate in the House on whether the government has the right to take legislative decisions.

The uncharacteristically fiery speech came shortly after the PML-N’s parliamentary party, presided over by Abbasi and including national and provincial assembly members and senators of the PML-N met to discuss whether or not to discuss the judges’ conduct on the assembly floor.

PM slams judiciary for labeling MPs as ‘thieves and looters’

“It was conveyed yesterday that the court cannot intervene in the process of legislation,” Express News quoted Justice Nisar as saying during the proceedings of the media commission case.

I have repeatedly said that parliament is a supreme institution but there’s something even more supreme, and that is the Constitution.

“In one of the cases, we didn’t give any remarks but raised some questions; we only asked if a certain person was eligible [to hold a public office].”

There’re questions that are raised during court proceedings, Justice Nisar said and asked how the court’s remarks could amount to an insult to parliamentarians.

“I don’t want to give [an impression that I’m furnishing] an explanation,” he said. “We need to be savvy of the administration’s measures and basic rights of people.”
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640011/1-parliament-cannot-devise-law-conflicting-constitution-cjp/

 

[Kabira]

Agreed with CJ here, parliament cannot pass any legislation. This slave Abbasi PM should forgot about saving Nawaz. Its about time Pakistani politicians paid attention to public issues instead of personalties.

 

[Pakistani E]

Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?

 

[Kabira]

Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?

Not if they want to pass law which suite particular individual.

 

[war&peace]

Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?

This assembly was not elected with mandate to make the constitutions as was 1973s. The interpretation of the laws is the jurisdiction of the SC. Any law that conflicts with constitutions and fundamental rights of the people or it is based on some malicious intent, can be stricken down by the SC.

 

[Bashido]

This CJP is prime example of self glory and ch iftikhar syndrome.

This assembly was not elected with mandate to make the constitutions as was 1973s. The interpretation of the laws is the jurisdiction of the SC. Any law that conflicts with constitutions and fundamental rights of the people or it is based some malicious intent, can be stricken down by the SC.

Interpretation of the law is the jurisdiction of the SC??? How.

 

[Zibago]

Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?

2/3rd majority needed to ammend constitution which is not easy as it will require ppp and pti to be on their side in senate

This CJP is prime example of self glory and ch iftikhar syndrome.

-Removed insults - webby.

 

[saiyan0321]

hmmmmm

Article 8 of the constitution of pakistan.

Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void.

1. any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law,insofar as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this chapter, shall, to the of such inconsistency, be void.
   
2. The state shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights so conferred and any law made in contravention of this clause, to the extent of such contravention, be void.

the following case laws can help shed light.

It was stated in muhammad nawaz sharif vs president of pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473

Fundamental rights guaranteed in any constitution are not capable of precise or permanent definition. These rights are to be construed in consonance with the changed conditions of the society and must be viewed and interpreted with a vision to the future.

In the case law mahmood khan achakzai vs federation of pakistan PLD 1997 SC 426

Words "any law" as used in present article will apply to all laws made by the parliament, be it general law or a law to amend the constitution.

qualifications for member of majlis e shoora

62.1.f

he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law.

PLD 2009 SC 107

Performance of an individual or any group of individuals or any class is not the touchstone for determining the validity of any legislative action. The court has to decide the controversy on legal and constitutional grounds.

Article 184.3 of the constitution of Pakistan pertains to the original jurisdiction of the supreme court and its object is to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights referred to therein. This provision is an edifice of democratic way of life and manifestation of responsibility cast on supreme court as a protector and guardian of the constitution. the jurisdiction conferred by its fairly wide and the court can made an order of of the nature envisaged by article 199, in a case where a question of public importance, with reference to enforcement of any fundamental right conferred by chapter 1 of part 2 of the constitution is involved. Article 184.3 is remedial in character and conditioned by three prerequisites.

1. there is a question of public importance
2. Such a question involves the enforcement of fundamental rights
3. The fundamental rights sought to be enforced is conferred by chapter 1 part 2 of the constitution...

PLD 1988 SC 416
PLD 1993 SC 473


The supreme court being the creature of the constitution is mpowered to examine the legislative competence to declare a statute or a legal document ultra vires the constitution, or the action of the state authorities void if its in conflict to the provision of the constitution, in exercise of its power of judicial review and has to enforce the constitution as a paramount law but the scopre of judicial review of the superior courts being confined to the enforcement of constitution as supreme law for the purpose of determining the question relating to the legality of administrative action, the court will make harminous interpretation of the provision of the constituion to avoid ambiguity.

PLD 2010 SC 61

 

[Kabira]

This CJP is prime example of self glory and ch iftikhar syndrome.

Problem is Pakistan isn't UK. All these parliamentarians will be busy passing laws to save their own skin. Majority of Pakistanis neither care or will know much what happened. One can only laugh when they give example of what happen in UK parliament.

"I invite Chief Justice of Pakistan to attend undergraduate LAW Classes on #ParliamentarySovereignty in UK or I can teach him for FREE-that Parliament as the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other institutions,including executive or judicial bodies" Abbasi

 

[VCheng]

parliament is a supreme institution but there’s something even more supreme, and that is the Constitution.

What the Honorable Judge conveniently forgot to mention was that under certain circumstances made "necessary", something can be even more supreme than the Constitution.

A Constitution can only work as well as the people and institutions willing to follow it.

 

[Zibago]

Agreed with CJ here, parliament cannot pass any legislation. This slave Abbasi PM should forgot about saving Nawaz. Its about time Pakistani politicians paid attention to public issues instead of personalties.

Phir sey side change yaar insaan ban Hamid Mir na ban

On topic be it US or UK laws conflicting with constitution are challenged in court Trumps travel van despite support of Republicans and the president was challenged and had to be severely ammended on orders of the court thats how democracies function
Sharifs and their paid suar kay bachay are used to authoritarian regimes of middle east they dont know how real democracies function

 

[Kabira]

Phir sey side change yaar insaan ban Hamid Mir na ban

On topic be it US or UK laws conflicting with constitution are challenged in court Trumps travel van despite support of Republicans and the president was challenged and had to be severely ammended on orders of the court thats how democracies function
Sharifs and their paid suar kay bachay are used to authoritarian regimes of middle east they dont know how real democracies function

I'm on Pakistan side not in to peer faqiri like you guys.

What the Honorable Judge conveniently forgot to mention was that under certain circumstances made "necessary", something can be even more supreme than the Constitution.

A Constitution can only work as well as the people and institutions willing to follow it.

Days of martial laws are over, army will be crippled even more in coming years. They have looted enough in the name of occupied Kashmir and afghani terrorism.

 

[Zibago]

I'm on Pakistan side not in to peer faqiri like you guys.

Bhai to rehn dey
@PakSword

I'm on Pakistan side not in to peer faqiri like you guys.



Days of martial laws are over, army will be crippled even more in coming years. They have looted enough in the name of occupied Kashmir and afghani terrorism.

No more sharifs and altafs and nro, s for the corrupt lot things will improve for us no more compromises on key issues

Oh and on Kashmir well without Sharif our policy will be more anti India trust me on that darlin

 

[saiyan0321]

article 68 says no discussion shall take place in majlis e shoora with respect to the conduct of any judge of the supreme court or of a high court in the discharge of his duties,

PLD 1998 SC 823

Article 68 of the constitution provides that no discussion shall take place in parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the supreme court or high court in the discharge of his duties.


article 69. The validity of any proceedings in parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.

Courts cannot scrutinize the internal proceedings of the parliament.

there is also the preamble which states that

wherein principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by islam shall be fully observed.


Parliament has power to amend laws however there is precedence of judicial review of passed laws and then there is the islamic limitations which cannot allow a corrupt person to become state or party head.

this requires alot of research.

 

[MBT 3000]

agree with CJ