The Intelligence Bureau also submitted its report and confirmed that on the call of some PPP leaders, strikes were observed throughout Sindh except Matiari, Umar Kot and Thar against the SC judgement.

According to reports, Taj Haider gave a call to boycott courts, close trade centres, offices, education and other institutions, transport etc. The news was widely televised and published in the electronic and print media.

Taj Haider had stated: “Legislators would take out rally from Sindh Assembly building to Sindh High Court to lodge protest against politically motivated decision of superior judiciary. They would observe the general strike across the Sindh province against the interference of the judiciary in administrative affairs…the said judgement is discriminatory because another person who belongs to Sindh was removed from his service because he is a Sindhi and the whole party protests against the said decision.”

While Sharjeel had said: “The courts have dual standards as they did not take any action against those who invaded the courts. Furthermore, tomorrow strike will be held in Sindh and atrocity with Sindh should be stopped. He also stated that it is shameful decision…”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C03%5C27%5Cstory_27-3-2011_pg7_9

Judges as legislators

Babar Sattar
Saturday, March 26, 2011

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

In ‘Blink’ Malcom Gladwell suggests that human beings generally reach decisions intuitively and instantly upon being confronted with the need to reach them and then come up with explanations rationalising their choices. He calls it the “storytelling problem” where we later create stories to explain the decisions we make or actions we take. Reading the recent rulings of the Supreme Court one gets the sinking feeling that Gladwell might be right.

The jurisprudential debate over what judges ought to do in courts has largely subsided across the world. It is now agreed that judges do not declare what the law should be, but only what it is. In other words, judges are not legislators or lawmakers, but adjudicators interpreting the text of the law laid out by legislators and stating what the text means.

When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr of the US Supreme Court revealed that, “this is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice,” he wasn’t being facetious. He was reiterating the limited scope of authority that a judge wields in a country that incorporates separation of powers through a written constitution.

But if the rulings of our Supreme Court in Sindh High Court Bar Association vs Federation of Pakistan (challenging the Parliamentary Committee’s disagreement with recommendations of the Judicial Commission regarding appointment of judges) and Shahid Orakzai vs Federation of Pakistan (questioning the legality of Justice Deedar Shah’s appointment as Chairman NAB) are samples to go by, our apex court judges don’t seem to abide by the doctrine of limited judicial authority.

Zardari-led PPP’s disregard for the mandatory consultation process in appointing the NAB Chairman is unjustifiable. And its contempt for the law and court rulings apparent in the re-nomination of Justice Deedar Shah for the same position after the apex court declared his appointment illegal even more abhorrent.

But this is not a conversation about who is better: the Supreme Court or the Zardari-led federal government. It is also not about the applicability of outcomes reached by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determines what the law is. In the above cases it has spoken its mind. And until it overrules itself, its words are final and binding. But when it comes to court rulings, what matters more than the instant outcome is judicial reasoning. For such reasoning becomes a precedent, binds subordinate courts and shapes the country’s jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court being “infallible because it is final” has no room to make mistakes. And yet the legal reasoning in these cases is seriously wanting. It is probably unfair to lump Shahid Orakzai (the Chairman NAB case) with Sindh High Court Bar Association (the judicial appointments’ case). The reasoning and outcome of the latter could deform our doctrines of democracy, separation of powers and limited institutional authority (all still in a state of infancy) and is therefore more troublesome.

The main reason leading to the outcome of the Chairman NAB appointment case is largely straightforward and logical, and the consequence of its ruling, fairly limited. But the reasoning in both cases provides a peek into the court’s perception of its seemingly unlimited powers and the ‘do-good’ approach in exercising such powers without restraint.

Let’s get the Chairman NAB case out of the way first. Deedar Shah’s appointment has been declared ultra vires because law required the president to consult with the leader of the opposition before appointing a candidate to the office of Chairman NAB and this mandatory requirement was not meaningfully discharged. This is why Justice Shah’s appointment was illegal. But the court went on to produce other outcomes backed by unconvincing reasons.

The first is the uncharitable manner in which the possibility of Justice Shah’s reappointment has been eliminated. Subtler, but more dangerous, is the insistence of the court that an administrative role for the chief justice in the process of appointing Chairman NAB must be carved out even though there is no statutory or textual basis for the same.

The ruling points out that NAB law allows a chairman to serve only one term and prohibits grant of any extension. It then states that as Deedar Shah has already served as Chairman NAB since November 2010, he is now barred from being reappointed. This is circular reasoning at best. Justice Shah has not been removed for misconduct through use of the legal mechanism provided for ouster of Chairman NAB. (Chairman NAB can only be removed from office through the procedure that applies to a judge of the Supreme Court.) He has actually not been removed at all. The court found that Justice Shah was not a legitimate chairman because he was never appointed legally.

In such case, while holding that Justice Shah’s appointment was ultra vires of the law and invalid, the court should have clarified that his appointment was void ab initio (void right from the start, just the way appointments of PCO judges were held as such).

Now if Justice Shah was never legally appointed as Chairman NAB, how can his work at NAB for a few months under a mistake of fact (that he was a legitimate chairman) be counted as a term in office disabling him from ever being appointed as Chairman NAB? The ruling acknowledges that Justice Shah is without fault (and sympathises with him). So how can he be condemned as ineligible for a position he might legally qualify for when he has done no wrong?

Let us hypothetically assume that the leader of the opposition is meaningfully consulted and agrees to support Justice Shah’s appointment as Chairman NAB. According to the court, he can still not be appointed as such and must personally pay for the mistake of the law ministry that processed his invalid appointment in the first place.

If Justice Shah has a right to be appointed Chairman NAB upon satisfaction of all other legal requirements, how can such right be taken away due to someone else’s fault? Has the Supreme Court just undone ubi jus ibi remedium (‘where there is a right there is a remedy’)? Would the court even have expounded on the legality of Justice Shah’s reappointment had he not been re-nominated before the announcement of the detailed judgment?

The Zardari-PPP decision to reappoint Justice Shah as Chairman NAB was ridiculous. Thus, as a practical matter the court stretching the law to lay this controversy to rest is quite welcome. But principled determination of legal controversies has no room for expediency. We might be sick of the trickery employed by the Zardari regime to run this country down. But does that allow constitutional courts to replace principled reasoning as a basis of the rulings with crafty strategies to pay a devious regime back in the same coin?

And then this business of the chief justice being ‘pater familias’ and the lord and saviour of the pitiful multitudes simply refuses to go away, despite much talk about the need for building institutions. The suggestion incorporated in the NRO case and the Harris Steel case has been repeated in the Chairman NAB appointment case: the chief justice should also be consulted before appointing an individual as Chairman NAB.

Now NAB is an executive agency under the prime minister’s control. Its statute provides that its chairman is to be appointed after consultation between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition; meaning, with bipartisan support. There is absolutely no statutory basis for the chief justice to get involved with the process. And yet our apex court demands such a role. Whence do our judges derive this authority to say what the law ought to be?

(To be concluded)

Email: [email protected]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=38229&Cat=9&dt=3/26/2011

This crazy SOB called Anzar Abbasi may he rot in hell calls all PPP walas as minnows. Ask him if elected people are minnows then what is he????
read his “report” in the news:

ISLAMABAD: After extraordinary patience and a long rope of leniency given by the Supreme Court to the PPP government in face of repeated defiance of its judgments, the contempt notices issued to two PPP leaders of Sindh mark the stage where the SC is saying “enough is enough”.
The day the PPP minnows Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon spat their venom, ostensibly on the conspiratorial wink of their party boss, to defy the court decision on the chairman NAB, it was generally believed that a contempt of court had been committed.
Giving a call for a protest strike against the judiciary and its verdict throughout Sindh was equal to crossing all limits and that too by the ruling party with the clear support of the government, which has the first constitutional responsibility to respect and implement court decisions.
But when the government starts ignoring the Supreme Court’s orders and the ruling party begins openly ridiculing the topmost court and its respected judges, it becomes too serious a trend to be overlooked.
Contempt of the court is just one aspect. The far more serious repercussion of this trend is the encouragement that mafias and criminal gangs get to further their agendas without any fear of law and justice or anyone holding them accountable.
The losers in such a situation are the law abiding citizens, the state-institutions and the country. The obvious consequence of ridiculing and showing defiance to court decisions is inviting anarchy and chaos in the society.
Court decisions could be critically examined but should never be ridiculed and laughed at. Anyone aggrieved by a ruling has the constitutional right to challenge the same before a higher judicial authority or seek a review from the same court. But resorting to strike by a government party is really unheard of. In this particular case, however, it became criminal and highly irresponsible as it resulted into loss of several lives and properties.
Since December 2009 when the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision on NRO, the government and certain PPP leaders left no opportunity to confront the superior judiciary either by ridiculing it or refusing to obey its orders.
In a show of remarkable patience some contempt of court notices were issued but not pursued by the apex court. Instead of limiting themselves, the government and the PPP leaders furthered their aggression against the independent judiciary, which ultimately took the timely decision on Saturday to issue contempt of court notices to Taj Haider and Shirjeel Memon.
The tone and tenor of the court press release clearly hints at the seriousness of the situation. It even talks of the possible disqualification of Shirjeel, the PPP MPA from Sindh.
The contempt proceedings would send a clear message to all and sundry that court decisions should not be ignored or ridiculed. Only a few days back the ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi told me that the leniency of the apex court towards the violators of its decisions and directions was unprecedented. He said: “Now the courts must act and send a few of the violators behind the bars.”
Being a member of Jang Group and an observer of certain things happening in respect of the Geo Super, one is astonished to know how daringly an ordinary official body like Pemra and cable operators can jointly hinder the broadcast of World Cup on Geo Super despite the clear decision and directions of the superior judiciary. These are obviously dangerous trends and should not be tolerated at all.
Only recently, The News and Jang ran a story filed by Usman Manzoor reflecting on the 15 cases in the past 14 months in which the government defied court directions. From the implementation of the NRO judgment to the fair investigations into the corruption scams like Haj fraud, NICL swindle, Pakistan Steel’s plunder, Bank of Punjab scandal, re-employment fraud, the Supreme Court has been repeatedly passing orders, giving directions, and seeking changes, but the government remained arrogant and adamant to show disrespect to the top most judicial body of the country.
At times, SC was heard frustratingly complaining that its orders are not being implemented. On one occasion, honourable Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had to ask Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq as to how many court orders had not been obeyed. The attorney general could not count. He would perhaps not know that how many attorney generals, law secretaries and other officials had to resign because of the government’s non-seriousness towards the implementation of the court decisions.
Several times, the government was even grilled, but it remained purposely and deliberately defiant. In almost every major corruption scandal and in the NRO case too, the government has tried to defy the Supreme Court’s orders. Will this trend continue after the contempt notices to the PPP leaders will now have to be seen?

@Abdul bhai, its no coincidence. They are the same Taliban aashikeen!

Between us that woman in the PS looks suspicious to me. It seems she is acting and she changes her stances by saying her brother was arrested and then accuse SHO of raping her sister.

In the Bible, Satan is referred to as the Lord of the flies, which is such an appropriate descriptive for our own Chief.

Criminal Silence of Pakistani Judiciary on Journalists – Part – 1 (Matiullah Jan Dawn News) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOw0J9VqnHg

Criminal Silence of Pakistani Judiciary on Journalists – Part – 2 (Matiullah Jan Dawn News) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw3XE6JHZSg

Criminal Silence of Pakistani Judiciary on Journalists – Part – 3 (Matiullah Jan Dawn News) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_hvbwzn-E

why no contempt notice to hamid gul who after raymond davis release used so harsh words for judiciary and Iftikhar choudry in Kshif abbasi and other shows.Khawaja saad rafiq said in NEWSBEAT on SAMMA TV that they dont accept judiciary’ decision about raymond davis. so many anchors showed disapointment with judiciary in raymond davis case and critisized the decsion of court.Suo motos and contempt of court are only for ppp.Iftikhar choudry become a party against ppp.i think ppp members should take all those tapes of people who critisized judiciary after raymond davis case to SC and asked the judges why no contempt notices to those people.

PPP sabse phatto jamat hai, FBR waalon ko peechay lagao iin judges kay, kyun dartey ho bhie tum log khud corrupt aur darpok ho, jis ki wajah se idaray media aur judiciary ke agay kamzoor ho rahey hain.

Asma shows concern over SC verdicts By Our Staff Reporter | From the Newspaper http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/30/asma-shows-concern-over-sc-verdicts.html

LAHORE, March 29: Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jahangir has expressed reservations over two recent judgements by the apex court through which the appointment of Justice Deedar Shah (retired) as NAB chairman was declared unconstitutional and the parliamentary committee decision of not giving extension to six additional judges of high courts was set aside.

At a press briefing here on Tuesday, she said these judgements reflected “judicial dictatorship and a lack of tolerance against other democratic institutions”.

Ms Jahangir said she agreed with the Deedar Shah verdict to the extent where it ruled for appointment of NAB chairman through consensus-oriented meaningful consultation between the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition. However she criticised the verdict for closing the door for Mr Shah’s reappointment even through due process. In her opinion Justice Deedar Shah could be reappointed if all rules and procedure of the appointment were fulfilled.The SCBA president was not satisfied with the decision in as much as it provided for the chief justice of Pakistan to decide the matter if the leaders of the house and opposition were at dispute over the appointment. She said this means the complete authority to make appointment would go to the CJP discarding parliament. She said the government should go for a review petition in this case.

“Being the SCBA president, I will point out what is constitutionally right and it’s up to the people to decide,” Ms Jahangir said.

She claimed that many lawyers also had reservations on the SC judgements but they avoided open criticism for one reason or another.

She urged the parliament to finalise and approve the amended accountability law without further delay.

About the verdict through which the SC had set aside the Parliamentary Committee’s decision against extension to the services of six additional judges of Lahore and Sindh high courts, Ms Jahangir said the court indirectly decided the pending matter on 18th and 19th constitutional amendments and one of the four members on the bench highlighted this fact in his dissenting note.

She said the decision completely ended the role of the parliamentary committee by denying it the right to disagree with the recommendations of the Judicial Commission. She questioned the existence of a parliamentary committee that did not have the power to take independent decisions.

Ms Jahangir pointed out the reservations expressed by the chief justices of the high courts about the moral authority of the six additional judges in question.Ms Jahangir said that at the commission level appointment of judges had to be initiated through the CJP which in her view was contrary to the concept of independence of judiciary wherein independent opinion of every judge commanded weight and regard.She had an issue with the composition of the judicial commission, citing what she called a lack of representation from Sindh. Also on her list of concern was the confirmation of judge of the Peshawar High Court only a few months before he was to retire.The bar president concluded the briefing by calling for greater accountability in the judicial system.

Reversal of restoration of judges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKKqlm3V1sU&feature=related

میڈیا اور ججز:’رد عمل ذرا زیادہ تھا‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعـء 15 اکتوبر 2010 , 15:46 GMT 20:46 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2010/10/101015_judges_asma.shtml

Ali Ahmed Kurd says the judges should have waited

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPEcgwKWhHE&feature=related

Pre-emptive strike Published: October 15, 2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/62865/deposed-judges-issue-may-resurface/

The following is the text of the Supreme Court’s late night press release issued by Additional Registrar Sajid Mehmood Qazi:

“As per reports telecast tonight on several TV Channels including AAJ, GEO & ARY, alleging that the Government is considering to withdraw the notification/executive order dated 16.03.2009 of restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and other Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts. Some newspapers have already reported this issue as well. Earlier on, few months ago, a similar statement was made by one of the high constitutional office holders in the Parliament.

“As the news item was flashed by other TV channels, some channels have also telecast denial today (14.10.2010) from the Government, saying that there is no truth behind the said news.