In the Supreme Court: At least one sane voice might be heard! – by pejamistri

At least “My Lord” in his full majesty allowed Mr. Raza Rabbani to present his arguments in this case, though he will have to wait for his turn.

On the arguments being presented by Mr. Akram Shaikh , let me tell you a little anecdote.  When I was a student in the college, Nawaz Sharif the then Chief Minister of Punjab , put a ban on wearing “Chappals”  and “Chadar” , the big shawl popular in South Punjab particularly in winter. The students were enraged and started boycotting the classes. In my college, our Principal made a committee of two teachers to hear the students. I presented the case of students in front of that committee , and argued that the college is being run like a textile mill , the teachers are acting like foremans and managers of the mill and treating the students like “Mazdoor” , and so on and so on.  My teacher (Rizwi Sahib) heard me with patience and at the end said to me that he partially agrees with me about the textile mill analogy in that my speech was not that of enlightened student leader but it was more like a textile “Mazdoor Rahnama”.

Listening the Akram Shaikh yesterday I was reminded of Rizwi Sahib’s remark. Mr. Akram Shaikh’s arguments yesterday were not that of a constitutional lawyer discussing the delicate points of constitutional matters. It was that of a “Mazdoor Rahnama” pleading his case in front of textile mill management. The unfortunate thing was that most of the  listeners to his arguments on their Majesties seats were not the honorable judges of the supreme court but the middle management of the mill.

Now let me come to the points Akram Shaikh raised so far.

1. Media/Textile Policy and the Judges Appointment:  I was dumb founded when Akram Shaikh said when government makes the textile policy or media policy , government consults the relevant people , whereas in this case Government did not consult the judiciary… C’mon Akram Shaikh , don’t equate the honorable judges of Supreme Court with the Textile mill owners and Media tycoons.  The constitutional reforms committee held the longest discussion on the point of judges appointments and they had one of the hottest debates on these points. The members of the constitutional committee did exhaustive studies of the judicial appointments world over. They sought proposals from all the citizens of Pakistan and there were many people who had provided them proposals. You know the difference between the textile policy and judicial appointments.  If your point is that CJ was not “formally” contacted to ask for his opinion on the appointment of judges then I am afraid your wish is far fetched. Akram Shaikh was unable to answer the question posed by Justice Tassaduq Husain Jilani

“Was judiciary in Britain asked to give opinion before any change was effected in the modus operandi of the judges” appointment? Or, was Parliament made part of the process?”

Although the same question can be asked in case of United States.

2. March 09 2007: As a I said earlier that the people who keep comparing the “benevolent dictatorship” with “worst democracy” are below the human intellect. Mr. Akram Shaikh keep giving references to March 09, 2007.  The judiciary is not being ambushed as it was done on that fateful day. The 18th amendment is not the PCO of a mad dictator , it took 2 years and combined will of all the parties in Parliament to reach to a consensus document. Mr. Akram Shaikh should come out of his misconceived notions and preconceived ideas.

3. Objective Resolution: Some of the curses of military dictators are hard to get rid off. The article 2-A is one of those curses by the mad dictator General Zia. And as aptly put by Justice Saqib Nisar

“Why was not it considered at that time and why it was brought into the Constitution by a martial law administrator through insertion of Article 2-A!” he questioned. He asked him how 1973 Constitution could be interpreted on the basis of Artcle 2-A.”

There is no doubt in their infinite wisdom the forefathers of 1973 constitution decided not to make the objective resolution part of the constitution and now we understand why they decided so. The Akram Shaikh’s of this world use it for their nefarious designs.

Observations from the Judges:

From the observations the shape of the bench is now becoming little bit clearer. The first day on CJ and Justice Ramday were vocal. However now Mr. Justice Saqib Nisar snd Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain and last but not the least Justice Javaid Iqbal are also showing their presence.

While giving his remarks, Justice Javed Iqbal said that this isnot a constituent assembly. He added that by keeping in view the doctrine of electoral mandate they have to observe whether this assembly can bring large-scale changes in constitution.

Constituent vs Non-Constituent Assembly? I don’t know why certain judges are always obsessed with the argument of constituent and non-constituent assembly. This question has been discussed several times. It is interesting to note that the question is always raised to discredit the sitting Parliament. One must also note that this question has not been raised by the partitioner either.

Source: Pakistan and Future



Latest Comments
  1. drtahir
  2. Akhtar
  3. drtahir
  4. Abdul Nishapuri