SC regrets masses’ naivety in ‘lapping up’ political claims – Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said on Tuesday that some elements of society welcomed a ruling as an exemplary decision if it worked in their favor, but regretted it being ridiculed as a comedy of justice if it didn’t work for them.

Senator Farooq Naek, representing the PPP, observed at a hearing at a hearing calling for an interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution, after Senator Farooq Naek said, “We are heading towards anarchy because the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s rulings are not accepted with an open mind.” .”

But Umar Ata Bandial of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP), who has five Supreme Court judges, said the concept is too generalized to agree with.

Judge Jamal Khan Mandokhel, a member of the presiding judge, regretted that most people were so naive that they did not understand the true meaning of the judgment and forced them to kneel blindly as the leaders explained.

“This is very unfortunate,” added Judge Mandokhel.

Justice Asan recalled that he once asked a visiting judge if he had the power to insult a US judge if he disobeyed the ruling.

“In the United States, the Supreme Court is viewed as the final arbiter, so no government can even think of rejecting a ruling,” the judge replied, perplexed.

“If a political party takes power and ignores the ruling, it is natural that voters will never vote for a political party,” Asan said, citing an American judge.

Regarding the existence of Article 63A of the Constitution, CJP observed that political parties always left the judiciary to arbitrate North Korean defection cases instead of punishing them for the beneficiaries’ fault.

Justice Asan saw Article 63 of the Constitution as a clear warning that loyalties to North Korean defectors would have no place to stand.

Farooq Naek argued that the Supreme Court itself should specify the punishment for North Korean defection because it did not specify any penalty for life imprisonment under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. He proposed that the convicted person could not serve the remainder of his term as a member of Parliament, rather than a lifetime, as recommended by the president.

Naek argued that the Supreme Court could instruct the government to change the constitution, but it was up to Congress to pass laws to curb defection or amend the constitution.

He explained that through the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, he did not omit Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution due to differences between political parties.

He argued that the election form did not prescribe that one would not act contrary to the direction of the party leader after being elected.

Farooq Naek added that the Supreme Court could not prescribe penalties that the Constitution did not anticipate.

Specifically, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Nawaz Sharif concerns section 62(1)(f), which concerns the secrecy of nomination forms dealing with promises rather than promises before and after becoming a member.

Farooq Naek argued that there was no provision similar to section 62(1)(f) in the 2017 Election Act. The position of a member of parliament is like a slave.

The defense argued that it was clear from the literal interpretation of section 63A that it was not possible to restrict voting on a resolution of no confidence under section 95(1) of the Constitution. Vote against the ruling party.

Digging into the PTI, Farooq Naek said that no member of the ruling party can stop voting as it is now, “the ruling party has completely failed in every way.”

“Members cannot be declared as defectors until they are declared as defectors in the competent forum.”

Tuesday’s proceedings ended with questions from Judge Mandokhel.

Posted at Serb on April 20, 2022