From judgment on PCO to case against 18th Amendment – by pejamistri

Last year I was excited about Supreme Court hearing the case against the PCO of November 3rd , and I wrote “Can they cleanse the mess” , it is unfortunate that today I have to write about Supreme Court of Pakistan hearing the case against 18th amendment and in this process they (honorable Judges) creating more mess in the constitution and in fact nullifying the clean up that 18th amendment finally did.

I find it really difficult and in fact loathsome to talk to a person who does not understand the difference between a military dictator and a democratic ruler. I consider all those people below human intellect who try to make comparison between the worst democratic ruler and a good military dictator. It is unfortunate that “honorable judges” consider it appropriate to hear the case against 18th amendment and even consider this case as important as the case against PCO by a military dictator (Read the comments from CJ IMC).

Although I consider it a shameful act by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to hear the petition against the constitutional amendment done by the Parliament representing the will of people of Pakistan, and I would hate to comment on the proceedings of this case. But against my wishes I do need to follow this case as this case is potentially going to nullify all the good deeds (particularly the judgment against PCO of November 3rd).

I will be following the news reports from BBC and The News on this case and will comment on the proceeding whenever I do get a chance. If somebody can suggest a better source of information on the proceeding of this case , please accept my thanks in advance.
As aptly put by Dr. Basit (Federation Counsel) ,

“To proceed with the case would be tantamount to trample the Constitution.”

I know that there are times when Supreme Court can hear the petitions against the constitutional amendments , there are precedents where Supreme Courts have given verdicts against the constitutional amendment around the world. There are precedents from the India and United States which will definitely be discussed during the course of the case.

However we need to take each case on its merits. Today when CJ IMC talked about the “importance” of this case , I could not believe that despite this “importance” , CJ IMC intentionally tried to keep Aitzaz Ahsan out of this case. He knows that Aitzaz Ahsan due to his ethical standards is not going to appear before CJ IMC. There was already rumors/news reports that one of the reason for objections against the inclusion of CJ in the bench was due to this fact.

Even if Aitzaz Ahsan was not willing to appear in the court on behalf of Federation or Government , it was still important to have him as amicus curiae , in order to get a proper hearing to this case. But the inclusion of CJ IMC in the bench has practically stopped appearance of Aitzaz Ahsan in this “important” case.

In today’s hearing , I was amazed at the CJ IMC’s remarks
“the CJ said he could be benefited from the case only when his son or any of his relatives could be made judge, asking whether Farooqui would even now object to the formation of judicial bench.”

I must say that CJ IMC must have understood the objection in its essence. The objection is not on the inclusion of the person of CJ , it is on the inclusion of “office of CJ” which is going to benefit from the verdict of this case. It would have been appropriate for the CJ IMC to get himself out of this case as it would have also paved the way for inclusion of Aitzaz Ahsan.

Source: Pakistan and Future

7 responses to “From judgment on PCO to case against 18th Amendment – by pejamistri”

  1. Mr.Mistri, it looks like you are so naive or you are trying to be naive.
    What the hell are you thinking? CJ should go out of the bench so that Aitizaz can also appear in the case!!!!!!!!!!!! It has never happened in the world history that CJ will quit for the appearence of a lawyer.
    Aitizaz is very respectable person and hknows what is wrong and what is right.
    Go and lick shoes of Mr.10% so that you may also get 1%.
    Mend your ways.
    Because of 18th ammendment , the respected judges will be appointed by the people having fake degrees, criminals like Babar Awan etc. All Pakistanis should have 0% tolerence for this and I am sure THE CRIMINAL-Mr.10% will be defeated on all fronts InshaAllah sooooooooooooooooon.

  2. @drtahir
    I would have replied to earlier part of your comment , however reading the later part of your comment , I’d suggest you to reread my article and give particular attention to the line which talks about the people below human intellect :)…

  3. Mr Tahir! 18 people under the chairmanship of Mr CJ, Head of Parallel running Government of Pakistan, who also has taken oath under PCO during the tenure of His Majesty General Musharraf, are NOT EQUAL to the 342 MNA + 100 Senators elected by the 18 Crores people of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even if these 18 do Doctorate in Law. I repeat, they are not Majlis-e-Shoora and have no right to be Majlis-e-Shoora in an Islamic State. They are Qazis and must remain within their criminal circles.

    And what proof do you have of Percentage? For 11 years, you failed to prove him a criminal! And continuosly getting failed!

    Baray ho Jao!

  4. Govt gaffes galore
    By Cyril Almeida
    Tuesday, 01 Jun, 2010

    ISLAMABAD: They just can’t play nice, can they?

    Yesterday could have been a quiet, dignified day in court. It wasn’t to be.

    First, the government threw a curveball: it decided to challenge the composition of the 17-member bench.

    The government’s first argument was unnecessary.

    The Supreme Court consists of 18 justices, but the 18th, Justice Zahid Hussain, has been sidelined because he took Musharraf’s PCO oath in 2007.

    Showing much, and mysterious, love for Justice Hussain, the government wanted to pluck him from the judicial doghouse, as it were, and install him on the bench hearing the challenges to the 18th Amendment.

    Why? It’s hard to say. A full court, all 18 judges, doesn’t have any greater constitutional weight than a larger bench, the 17 ‘active’ judges. Numbers only matter when it comes to overturning precedents — five judges can overrule three, 18 can overrule 17, etc. So if there was a reason behind the government’s demand, it appeared to lie outside the realm of the law per se.

    The second argument was downright unwise. The government wanted CJ Iftikhar off the bench.

    In the best of circumstances, the argument was a stretch: as a member of the judicial commission which is to nominate judges, CJ Iftikhar should not be a part of the hearings that will decide the commission’s fate, the government claimed.

    In the present, delicate circumstances, the argument was a red rag to the Supreme Court.

    Cue the court’s dubious move.

    While Abdul Basit was making his arguments, he was asked an unusual question: are these arguments your own or the government’s? Generally, it is assumed that a lawyer is arguing what his client, in this case the government, wants him to argue.Still, a seasoned lawyer like Basit should never have made the gaffe that came next.

    When asked a follow-up — who in the government specifically authorised you to make these arguments? — Basit, astonishingly, named names. ‘President of Pakistan,’ said the government’s counsel in his trademark lugubrious voice.

    Instantly, court and counsel realised the mistake. The judges leapt on it, pressing Basit for details. He tried desperately to back-pedal, but only dug himself in deeper: Salman Farooqui had given the ‘green light’, he claimed.

    The correct answer and the only one Basit was obliged to give: he was representing the federation and had received his orders from its legal arm, the law ministry.

    Instead, Basit had dragged the president and his right-hand man into the mix yesterday. Chalk up another blunder on the government’s ever-growing list of courtroom blunders.

    All morning it had been clear the challenges to the composition of the bench were going to be dismissed; now the court also had a chance to sink its teeth into Salman Farooqui and take a swipe at the president. Would it?

    When the judges reassembled a little after noon to announce their ruling, more drama intervened. A note made its way to CJ Iftikhar’s desk — Salman Farooqui was denying he had ever given any instructions to Basit.

    Basit collapsed on his sword. In near farcical scenes, the government’s counsel told the court he accepted whatever Farooqui had said while admitting he had no idea what Farooqui had said.

    The court adjourned again, announcing it would reconvene at 1pm with a fresh ruling.

    By the time the judges returned at 3.45, the damage had already been done: yet another news cycle had been taken up by talk of tension between the presidency and the Supreme Court. Only the Israeli attack and the fate of Talat Hussain kept the goings-on in the Supreme Court from dominating.

    Later, when Basit came out swinging with his aggressive comments to the media, conspiracy theorists saw the day’s events as an attempt by the presidency to drag the court into fresh controversies.

    A more mundane explanation: Basit was trying to save his neck, both from the presidency, which he had carelessly dragged into the proceedings, and the Supreme Court, which has initiated contempt of court hearings against him.

    Today should be a calmer day in the court. Then again, maybe it won’t.

  5. @pejamistri
    Whatever is wrong should be set right. Wrong is always wrong even if 99% people support it. Right is always right even if it has 0.1% support. You are talking of human intellect. Then why you dont have a courage to tell your “worst democratic ruller” to bring the 6 million dollars of poor Pakistanis back to Pakistan return back all that money to Pakistanis when he was looting them as Mr.10%.
    I do agree that this case is not as important
    as PCO case. But if the court wants to set thing right then whatz is ur problem? Court didnt object the good things of 18th ammendment but it is their responsibility to keep future judiciary away from politics. We know what happened previously– Those jiala candidates who lost elections on PPP ticket were appointed judges of High court. What a shame? You want that judiciary? If you want that judiciary then you are surely enemy of Pakistan and not a well wisher. I pitty your thinking.