Kya Do Judges Ka Ikhtalafi Note Makhsoos Nashiston Ke Faislay Par Assar Andaaz Ho Sakta Hai?
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Is it a routine thing for a judge to write a controversial note when there are no detailed decisions yet?
00:07No, it has happened many times that the minority judgment comes first and the majority comes later.
00:12In the case of Qazi Faisal's review, the minority judgment came first and the majority came later.
00:18But in this dissenting note, two or three things were unusual.
00:22The Supreme Court judges are saying that the majority judgment has been rephrased and rewritten.
00:39They are also saying that when there is a minority judgment,
00:43not just a minority judgment, but any minority judgment,
00:46the institution is not bound to implement it.
00:50So this is an impression that they are talking about this decision
00:55that this decision is non-binary and the election commission should act on it.
00:59But what difference will it make to the decision of two judges?
01:02But if even one judge says that the majority judgment is non-binary and it should not be accepted,
01:07then I think that even if the Prime Minister has been sent home in the past,
01:13but the decisions have been implemented.
01:15On this decision, whatever their point of view was, they said that the PTI was not in front,
01:23how did the Sunni Council get the PTI seats?
01:27But where is it written in this that you have given 78 seats in the Mal-e-Karima Noon and People's Party.
01:33Where did the law point justification come from?
01:36I have also seen that the decision of 13th January, which is the main one, is not mentioned.
01:40Then a review is being said that the review has been filed and the review is pending and it will be infructious.
01:45This is the development that has come in detailed reasoning.
01:49This is what Qazi Faisal says that the review will be infructious.
01:52This is what the two judges are saying.
01:54So there is a method.
01:56See, this is not the case at the moment.
01:58It is not a legal matter.
01:59At the moment, judicial politics and national politics are linked up.
02:02Judicial package, constitution amendment.
02:04See, if the government gets the remaining 78 seats,
02:07the government has no problem.
02:08If the PTI gets it, the government has a problem that the government will be able to do the constitution amendment.
02:12PTI has no benefit.
02:14The judicial package on which there is very little talk from the government and from all sides.
02:20But the real issue, the focus is on the constitution amendment.
02:26And all the work is on the constitution amendment.
02:30Judicial package.
02:31We can see this central fight, Imran.
02:34See, what our colleagues are saying about this decision.
02:39It is very interesting.
02:40Before that, let me set it for you.
02:43The vlogs that people are watching now.
02:46I have heard very interesting things.
02:48There is a lot of criticism.
02:50How did this happen?
02:51Who wrote the decision?
02:52Someone else has written this decision.
02:54You must have seen all this.
02:55You must have seen.
02:56No, absolutely.
02:57There is a lot of talk in the vlogs.
02:58But the point is that the point on which the disagreement is being made,
03:03there is no justification for it.
03:07Now, if two judges are saying and disagreeing with the decision,
03:11that the majority decision is irregular, it is illegal.
03:15Article 51, in which a whole formula has been given,
03:19how you will get special seats,
03:22that political party will be able to get,
03:24who must have won an election.
03:26And then there is section 104.
03:28Section 104 is about when you have to get special seats.
03:32Now the judges who are going to write the disagreement note,
03:35they are saying that when this decision has been written,
03:37in this you have Article 51, you have sectioned section 104,
03:42and Article 63A.
03:43You have done everything against it.
03:45If you had suspended this,
03:47But this is the decision of two judges.
03:49No, no.
03:50Does it matter?
03:51You are absolutely right.
03:52The decision is of two judges.
03:54Pervail will only make the decision of eight judges.
03:56But the debate on this,
03:58then this debate is not happening.
04:00They are saying that why did the judges write this decision?
04:02If they are disagreeing with the majority judges,
04:04they are doing it on this basis.
04:06But I have heard that people say that a detailed judgment will come,
04:09we will see their arguments,
04:11what evidence do they give that if there was no prayer of PTI,
04:14then why were seats given to PTI?
04:17First you will see what they say,
04:19after that you will disagree with that decision.
04:21I disagree with this argument.
04:23You have already disagreed.
04:25Give me two minutes.
04:27The most important thing in this is that
04:29when you are disagreeing with the decision,
04:31you are giving your own reasoning.
04:33And this reasoning has been given by the judge in a different note,
04:36which is a brief judgment of July 12,
04:38read it and give it to him.
04:40The judge has written in his note that
04:42because the detailed reasoning has not come yet,
04:44which has been talked about being non-existent,
04:46if given a chance, I will also talk about it.
04:48But the judges are saying that
04:50you have rewritten the law in a way,
04:52you could not have done this,
04:54so how can they say this in the end?
04:56That when it is a non-constitutional decision,
04:58after writing all this,
05:00they say that the administration should act on this non-constitutional decision.
05:03This is not possible, it is not possible.
05:05We are also sitting in a private gathering,
05:07so we have this opinion.
05:09I remember when I came to this profession,
05:11I heard a sentence, unholy haste.
05:13And this is my condition,
05:15this sentence was written for the first time
05:17at the sale of steel mill.
05:20Why is there so much unholy haste?
05:22Do you think this argument is right?
05:24What was the hurry?
05:26When Hamza Shahbazshif got 25 votes in the Punjab government,
05:29he disqualified 25 people.
05:31No, Mr. Imran Khan had sent a reference to the Election Commission.
05:34His appeal came to the Supreme Court.
05:36During this time, the 20 years that were vacant,
05:38elections were held there.
05:40And when he was elected,
05:42then his appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of those 25 people who were disqualified.
05:45So what did the Supreme Court say?
05:47That your appeal has been invalidated.
05:49Elections have been held on the votes of your colleagues.
05:51So now there is no reason to hear your appeal.
05:53So the same case is being made here too.
05:55If it is done, then what will happen?
05:57If it is implemented, then how will you reverse it?