#constitutionalamendments #bilawalbhutto #mariamemon #khabar #BilalAzharKayani #supremecourt #pti #imrankhan #mariamemon #khabar
Constitutional Court Agar Bani To Pakistan Ki Judicial History aur Cases... Justice r Shahid Jamil's Analysis
Constitutional Court Agar Bani To Pakistan Ki Judicial History aur Cases... Justice r Shahid Jamil's Analysis
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00The cracks in the judiciary are getting more and more evident.
00:03The practice and procedure ordinance that has been brought by the government has aggravated this matter further.
00:09We have seen that the Chief Justice has made a bench under this new ordinance.
00:13Mansoor Ali Shah did not become a part of it by objecting to this bench.
00:18In his absence, a bench was arranged in relation to the review of Section 63A.
00:22Now, there is no clarity about the future of that bench as to whether Justice Muneeb will sit in it in the future or if he will recuse himself from it.
00:32And the ad hoc judges who are being brought in place of the existing serving judges,
00:36who were told that since there are a lot of pending cases, they are being brought in to end the backlog,
00:42instead of that, they are being included in the benches in these important legal matters.
00:46So, in this regard, we have seen a lot of uproarous incidents this week,
00:50in which the present Chief Justice of Pakistan and the future Chief Justice of Pakistan,
00:54who will most probably be the new Chief Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in 45 days,
00:58have taken positions in front of each other very clearly.
01:03Is this situation unique to Pakistan's politics?
01:07We have been facing various legal and political upheavals for the past 75 years.
01:13Some legal experts believe that in the case of Sajjad Ali Shah, who was in the Supreme Court with him in 1997,
01:19because he was in the minority and the other judges had refused to work with him,
01:24the situation seems to be moving in that direction.
01:26Mr. Hamid Khan is talking about this very clearly.
01:28Listen.
01:29There is definitely a problem.
01:31The role of the current Chief Justice is very disappointing.
01:35And he himself is dividing his own court.
01:38This is the same situation that was born in 1997,
01:45when Sajjad Ali Shah took a few judges with him,
01:48and against the majority, he made all kinds of preparations.
01:54Ultimately, the majority prevailed and he was released.
02:01What happened in the case of Sajjad Ali Shah?
02:04Let's take a quick look at it from the perspective of history.
02:07Sajjad Ali Shah has been the 13th Chief Justice of Pakistan from June 4, 1994 to December 2, 1997.
02:15In 1993, when President Ghulam Ishaq Khan sent the Nawaz Sharif government home,
02:18the 11-member bench of the Supreme Court abolished the Nawaz Sharif government.
02:22But Sajjad Ali Shah was the only judge who opposed it.
02:26In 1994, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto appointed Sajjad Ali Shah on the fourth position in the seniority list as Chief Justice.
02:34In 1996, President Farooq Laghari dismissed Benazir Bhutto's government.
02:38Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah then continued this decision.
02:41Then where did the differences begin?
02:43The differences began in 1997, when Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah
02:47accused him of insulting the court in opposition to the increase in the number of judges in the Nawaz Sharif.
02:53This is where the differences began.
02:54After that, one of the reasons for the differences between Sajjad Ali Shah and the Nawaz Sharif
02:58was the establishment of special courts, contrary to the Chief Justice's wishes.
03:02The third important difference was that in 1997, when the Nawaz Sharif government
03:07withdrew the right to dismiss the Assembly from the President,
03:10the Supreme Court abolished these rights under the leadership of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
03:15But on the same day, another bench of the Supreme Court
03:18abolished these rights under the leadership of Justice Syed Udzima Siddiqui.
03:21And with this decision, the differences between Sajjad Ali Shah and Nawaz Sharif
03:24as well as between the courts were clearly visible.
03:27In these circumstances, Udzima's court appeared to be impartial.
03:30And the majority of the judges refused to accept Sajjad Ali Shah as the Chief Justice.
03:36After that, in the leadership of Justice Arshad Hassan Khan,
03:38the two benches of the Supreme Court first stopped Sajjad Ali Shah from working.
03:41And then the 10 benches, as the Chief Justice,
03:44banned the notification of the appointment of Sajjad Ali Shah.
03:47We will talk about this in the program.
03:49Apart from this, the Pakistan People's Party has taken a very clear position
03:51about the 7763A and the Ayni Court,
03:55that the Ayni Court is also going to be established.
03:58Justice Retired Shahid Jameel is with us.
04:00The Ayni Court that the government wants to bring in,
04:03today Birawal said that no matter what happens, the Ayni Court will definitely come.
04:07It is their own matter how they bring in the legal amendments and manage it.
04:11Is there a scope for the Ayni Court?
04:13Should it be there?
04:14Is there really a case?
04:16There is so much backlog.
04:17The Ayni cases and the other cases of Rosbara have become so complicated
04:21that a separate court should be made for it.
04:25Yes, thank you very much.
04:26In my opinion, the Ayni Court that they are trying to make,
04:36I don't see any bona fide reason behind it.
04:40I have said before that if you want to focus only on constitutional cases
04:48and address ignoring other cases,
04:52then you can make a bench in the Supreme Court,
04:57a constitutional bench of 5 or 7 judges,
04:59which is only related to the constitution,
05:01cases related to its interpretation.
05:04And if you increase the number of judges who were thinking of increasing the number,
05:09then you can give them eclat work.
05:12So, as far as this constitutional court is concerned,
05:16if you make it,
05:17the judicial history of Pakistan and all the cases will be disturbed.
05:24The interpretation of the constitution is there.
05:27There is a separate aspect of being right or wrong.
05:29I personally don't agree with a lot of cases.
05:33But the spirit of the constitution is that
05:36the constitution can only be interpreted by the Supreme Court.
05:42And in other words,
05:44the constitution is what is interpreted by the Supreme Court.
05:48And likewise is the law.
05:50And that is binding on everyone in Article 190.
05:54Everyone has to implement it in the aid of the Supreme Court.
05:58So, this political confrontation,
06:01especially keeping October in mind,
06:06this firefighting that is being done,
06:07I think it will cause irreparable damage to the country,
06:11especially to the judiciary.
06:13But the debate that we have been hearing since yesterday,
06:16when this detailed judgment has come,
06:18the debate is whether the Parliament that is making this law is supreme,
06:22or the Supreme Court that is interpreting this law,
06:26their interpretation should be put first.
06:29The government is saying that the Parliament is supreme,
06:31the speaker is writing the letter,
06:32the correspondents are doing it,
06:34it should be put first.
06:37I think these are all political slogans,
06:41rhetoric, political,
06:44and the constitution gives a very clear answer to this.
06:48Legislation is Mukanna's right.
06:52And the constitution that permits them,
06:57they can legislate.
06:59Parliament is sovereign, not supreme.
07:02Parliamentary supremacy does not mean that
07:05if the constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret it,
07:10then the Parliament disagrees with it,
07:14without reversing it in the review.
07:17This situation,
07:19this is the best example of anarchy,
07:24that you stop respecting your judges.
07:30As far as the practice and procedure is concerned,
07:34the amendment that has been made to nullify it,
07:38it is their right to amend it.
07:43And ECP is again a constitutional body,
07:48it has to see whether it has to follow this enactment,
07:51or follow the judgment of the Supreme Court.
07:53If you ask my opinion,
07:55I think the enactment that has been made is defective.
07:59Simply for the reason that
08:01this legislation is subordinate to the constitution.
08:06And the provisions that the Supreme Court has interpreted,
08:11are of the constitution.
08:13And those who have been called adversaries to the constitution,
08:17as it is said in Rule 94,
08:20the constitution has been interpreted.
08:25Therefore, this judgment cannot be obliterated with a simple legislation,
08:31or it cannot be made ineffective.