Was the division in judiciary visible in today's hearing?
Was the division in judiciary visible in today's hearing?
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 I think the real issue is that the judges are divided on whether the parliament can or cannot come into this domain.
00:09 The basic question that we heard from both sides was that there was a lot of clarity on both sides.
00:15 There were legal and legal points raised on that side as well.
00:18 There were examples of the US and others as well.
00:21 Whether the parliament has the authority to do this or not.
00:25 But before going into that, because we will be discussing this for a long time,
00:28 the proceedings today, live television, the way people were watching,
00:35 has this new era of the Supreme Court started?
00:38 How long will this live broadcast continue?
00:40 Is this for one case only, or for a few cases?
00:42 Or should all the cases be live broadcast?
00:44 Mr. Kajal, we were getting news from yesterday that this live telecast is going to happen.
00:50 When we sat in the court in the morning, the PTV cameramen were present.
00:55 But the court did not come.
00:58 So when the court came and started talking,
01:02 the live broadcast started and we got permission to broadcast this case for one day.
01:06 Is this only for the case?
01:07 Yes.
01:08 Now, a committee has been formed,
01:11 whose name is not known,
01:13 but they will make rules,
01:16 that if a telecast is to be done,
01:18 what cases and what timing will be there,
01:20 all these rules will be made.
01:22 When the rules are made, then only we can comment in a better way.
01:27 But Mr. Qazi, as you remember, when there was a reference against him,
01:30 he said at that time also that this should be done openly.
01:33 I was watching a documentary,
01:36 maybe you have not seen it,
01:38 a very famous actor, Johnny Depp,
01:40 he and his wife, he filed a defamation lawsuit against his former wife.
01:45 The judge decided that the proceedings will go live.
01:47 Will this be left to the judges?
01:49 Which judge wants to show this case live?
01:53 Or will this decision be made by a committee,
01:56 that all the cases will be live or only the constitutional cases will be live?
01:58 This committee will sit,
02:00 see, it is impossible to telecast every case live,
02:03 and it is not appropriate.
02:04 But what I am understanding is that,
02:07 there are seven benches sitting,
02:11 who will show whom?
02:13 See, the thing is that such a matter,
02:16 which is political or constitutional,
02:18 so maybe I am expecting that the committee will make such rules,
02:24 so such a formation,
02:26 now until those rules are not made,
02:28 you and I will do the guest work.
02:32 Sir, tell me Mr. Rashid,
02:34 it seemed that the judges were arguing the case.
02:38 Mukla's input was very, you know,
02:41 it seemed that a lawyer used to speak for a minute or a minute and a half,
02:44 suddenly questions used to come from both sides,
02:46 though the Chief Justice used to say,
02:48 used to stop the judges,
02:50 as soon as they were silent,
02:52 the judge used to say, but my question is.
02:54 Sir, in almost every big case, Mukla has a complaint,
02:56 that we got less time for arguments,
02:58 the questions of the judges were more.
03:00 But is it like this or this time there were more questions than before?
03:05 No, it was not so unusual,
03:07 questions are like this,
03:09 but the thing that was odd in that,
03:13 earlier when judges used to ask questions,
03:15 the lawyer was given time to answer.
03:17 Now, on one hand, the answer to the question came from the other judge,
03:20 did you feel this sitting there?
03:22 Yes, I did.
03:23 But the Chief Justice did not stop the lawyer,
03:26 but the reason why he was stopping,
03:28 as far as I understood,
03:30 was that the Chief Justice wanted to decide the case when there was less time.
03:33 And the point is only that whether it is maintainable or not.
03:36 But the other judges who gave it a stake,
03:38 they had heard the stake before,
03:40 they were only changing their viewpoint when the Chief Justice changed.
03:44 They were sticky on the points that they had decided before,
03:49 they were giving the same questions to the other judges,
03:51 to answer them.
03:52 Was it on the division of the judiciary?
03:54 I think, the first thing you said,
03:56 that one judge used to ask questions,
03:58 and before the lawyer's answer came,
04:00 the other judge used to ask supplementary questions,
04:03 we used to see this question in the 21st and 18th amendments also.
04:06 When it was a case of military courts,
04:08 the judge who was in favor of the amendment,
04:10 he used to have more questions,
04:12 and the judge who was against it,
04:14 he had more questions.
04:16 But the fundamental difference in this,
04:18 one was that live streaming was going on,
04:20 the disagreements in front of the people were openly coming out,
04:23 which judge is asking what question,
04:25 what question the other judge asked,
04:27 so you can say that it is the quarrel between the judges.
04:30 Like, see, Ayesha Malik Sahab asked a question,
04:33 that see, you have made this full court,
04:35 if this law is going to be in effect,
04:37 then where will the appeal go?
04:39 He asked this question many times.
04:41 He asked this question 3-4 times, and repeated it again and again.
04:44 So, Mansoor Ali Shah Sahab said,
04:46 that if you read the section 4-5 of the law,
04:48 then I think, when the full court is made,
04:50 then there will be no room for debate.
04:52 There will be debate.
04:54 See, the law says that,
04:56 after a decision, there is an appeal,
04:58 whose right is not given under this law,
05:00 but is given under the law.
05:02 When the whole court will sit,
05:04 then Mr. Suhail gave a better answer.
05:06 He said, call the judge of the High Court,
05:08 and make a burger court.
05:10 You are right.
05:12 Qazi Faiz Sahab gave a better answer.
05:14 He said, today, the people who are raising questions,
05:16 that after the full court,
05:18 the appeal will be heard,
05:20 when the debate was made,
05:22 they themselves did not think of it.
05:24 See, this is a very important thing.
05:26 You see, Qazi Sahab was not sitting
05:28 in any bench since this act came.
05:30 How will you sit, sir?
05:32 I am not sitting,
05:34 because I do not know the decision of the stay.
05:36 I have not come to hear the full decision.
05:38 No, his statement was implemented,
05:40 that three committee will form benches,
05:42 and three committee gave a consent,
05:44 that we will sit with you,
05:46 and will constitute benches,
05:48 which are sitting tonight.
05:50 Benches have been formed.
05:52 Because tomorrow,
05:54 the cases of local lawyers,
05:56 will be fixed, and then current.
05:58 So, the thing is,
06:00 that if, suppose,
06:02 if this arrangement was not there,
06:04 then Qazi Sahab,
06:06 as the Chief Justice,
06:08 would not have formed benches,
06:10 then the court would have been different.
06:12 And Qazi Sahab said, during hearing,
06:14 that suppose, the Chief Justice says,
06:16 that I will not form benches,
06:18 then what will happen?
06:20 I will not play, nor will he play.
06:22 Sir, he is the Chief Justice of Pakistan,
06:24 why do you make him the son of the 8th Jamaat,
06:26 who will play with the kids?
06:28 But, now, the problem is,
06:30 that in many cases,
06:32 Sir, in many cases,
06:34 this, this thing,
06:36 not in many cases,
06:38 but in many places,
06:40 Justice Sahab said,
06:42 like Faiz Sahab,
06:44 when someone said,
06:46 that if Parliament does this today,
06:48 then tomorrow, if Parliament does this,
06:50 he said, do not talk on the basis of assumptions.
06:52 This is also an assumption,
06:54 that a judge will come and say,
06:56 that this will not take up for many years.
06:58 This has not taken up.
07:00 He was giving an example of this.
07:02 Today, those cases were also mentioned.
07:04 In that, he said,
07:06 if the government has banned you,
07:08 that you have to file a case in 14 days,
07:10 then it is saying, that you have to file,
07:12 it is not saying, that the decision has to be taken.
07:14 There are such cases,
07:16 but the bail, before arrest cases come in the Supreme Court.
07:18 Those cases do not take up,
07:20 and when they take up,
07:22 do you know what happens?
07:24 The bail before case,
07:26 that did not take up.
07:28 I remember, Justice Asif Saeed Khossa
07:30 said, that a case of bail came,
07:32 in which the person had died.
07:34 That was a murder case,
07:36 that was decided.
07:38 Today, we have such a decision.
07:40 Today, we had such a decision,
07:42 that if I had brought him along,
07:44 after two years,
07:46 a two-page decision was issued.
07:48 That was a case of a civil servant.
07:50 Now, he kept waiting for two years,
07:52 that my decision should come.
07:54 I had to write a two-page decision.
07:56 That decision did not come.