I totally agree with Dr M. Ahmed Khan’ s comments
Dekhna taqreer ki lazat us ki key jo us ney kaha
Mein nein jana goya yeh be merey dil mein hai.

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

Criminal Silence of Pakistani Judiciary on Journalists – Part – 4 (Matiullah Jan Dawn News) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iiqMPpNgQM

Criminal Silence of Pakistani Judiciary on Journalists – Part – 5 (Matiullah Jan Dawn News) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW866RxSWQ0

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.

Why no contempt of court notice to these channels?

One question that should be asked and is being ignored “who aired the news” and CJ “orders” government to find out about the news According to a notification released by the SC, directors of three local TV channels and Chairman Pemra, Mushtaq Ahmed, were informed by a notice to be present at the hearing. The full court will only do the hearings of judges’ restoration notification on 18th October. While other benches will proceed with their normal hearings. -DawnNews SC hearing for restoration notification on 18 Oct Saturday, 16 Oct, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/06-sc-hearing-for-restoration-notification-on-18-oct-rs-01

Capital Talk 15th october 2010 part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MPPARWrzQo

Capital Talk 15th october 2010 part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPD-PTCKqbA&feature=related

Capital Talk 15th october 2010 part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpORRK8mgf4&feature=related

Capital Talk 15th october 2010 part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUmnUOcBntA&feature=related

Ali Ahmed Kurd says the judges should have waited

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

One question that should be asked and is being ignored “who aired the news” and CJ “orders” government to find out about the news According to a notification released by the SC, directors of three local TV channels and Chairman Pemra, Mushtaq Ahmed, were informed by a notice to be present at the hearing. The full court will only do the hearings of judges’ restoration notification on 18th October. While other benches will proceed with their normal hearings. -DawnNews SC hearing for restoration notification on 18 Oct Saturday, 16 Oct, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/06-sc-hearing-for-restoration-notification-on-18-oct-rs-01

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

’عدلیہ غیر جانب دار نہیں رہی‘

آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعـء, 19 فروری, 2010, 05:58 GMT 10:58 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/02/100218_asma_interview.shtml

’عدلیہ دائرہ کار سے تجاوز کر گئی ہے‘

علی سلمان
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لاہور

عدلیہ کا کام ارکانِ پارلیمان کی اخلاقیات کی جانچ پڑتال نہیں
آخری وقت اشاعت: ہفتہ, 19 دسمبر, 2009, 05:25 GMT 10:25 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/12/091219_hrcp_asma_as.shtml

Chief Justice Pakistan’s son Dr Arsalan with Kamran Khan on GEO TV (2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8P-VmGvEuc

Contempt of Court Case is still pending against “Lawyers Movement Champion” Advocate and Senior too:) Hamid Khan: Civil Review Petition No.103 of 2002 in Constitution Petition No.1 of 2002

http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/JR_Civil_Review_Petition_No_103_of_2002.pdf

Contempt of Court “BY LAWYERS”

Lawyers flay Supreme Court decision By Our Staff Reporter November 8, 2002 Friday Ramazan 2,1423 http://dawnnews.tv/2002/11/08/nat2.htm

ISLAMABAD, Nov 7: The Supreme Court Bar Association will soon convene a meeting to consider the issue of withdrawal of the status of senior advocate from the SCBA president, Hamid Khan, after his statement that the bar has no faith in the judiciary after it took oath under the PCO. Sadaqat Ali Mirza, an office bearer of the SCBA, speaking to reporters at a press conference on Thursday, said that the SCBA had highest respect for the members of the judiciary but it was inappropriate for the judiciary to attribute political motives to the bar for its principle stance with regard to the taking up of the matters of constitutional importance before the courts. He said the bar had only asked the apex court to return its review petition and such request could not be termed as contempt of court. It was a routine with the lawyers to ask the courts not to hear the case if they had any suspicion about getting justice from the bench would not be possible, he added.

The SCBA office bearer said that the Supreme Court’s saying that the bar was criticizing its role for political and other extraneous motives, was wrong and it would not help the cause of any party. He argued that the statement of the SCBA which was placed before the Supreme Court bench by its president was the voice of the whole lawyers community and not the whim of any individual. He said that the whole legal fraternity was dismayed at the treatment being meted out by the apex court to its leader Mr Khan and asked the court to consider the whole matter with patience. Mr Mirza requested the court to try to ascertain why the whole legal fraternity was against it and regretted that the honour which was bestowed upon the SCBA president had been withdrawn without citing any reason through a suo motu action. He said the bar was opposed to such unilateral acts.

Supreme Court says its verdict has helped revive democracy By Rafaqat Ali October 31, 2002 Thursday Sha’aban 24,1423 http://66.219.30.210/2002/10/31/top9.htm

ISLAMABAD, Oct 30: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it took oath under the PCO to preserve the judicial system, and due to its judgment in which it validated the military takeover the army was going back to barracks by restoring democracy. The apex court, responding to the statement of the Supreme Court Bar Association that arguing a case before the present judiciary was a futile exercise “as it had ceased to be independent,” observed that it reserved its right to take action against the president of SCBA, Hamid Khan, for his “disparaging remarks” about the independence of the judiciary. The SCBA had asked the SC bench on Monday to return its review petition as the bar was of the view that the judiciary, after taking oath under the PCO and by upholding various orders and acts of the present military regime, had ceased to be independent and no substantial question of constitutional importance should be argued before this court in its present composition.” The SC bench called the president of the SCBA, “Hamid Khan, contemner,” and said the SCBA statement was “motivated by malice, extraneous considerations and for political reasons.” In its five-page order, authored by Chief Justice Riaz Ahmad, the SC held that the contents of the application constituted gross contempt of court as it used disparaging remarks about the judiciary through the language which could not have been expected from the pen of the SCBA president. The SC asserted that democracy was being revived in the country and the regime would go back to barracks because of the SC judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case and the oath taken by judges of the SC (under PCO). “It is because of the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case and oath taken by the judges of the Supreme Court that a time schedule was given and the regime had to hold elections and to go back to barracks after restoration of democratic institutions.”

The court said that in compliance with its judgments, elections were held in the country on Oct 10, 2002, and the process of transfer (of power) was in progress. The SC said that taking oath under the PCO by judges of the superior judiciary was welcomed by the senior lawyers like Khalid Anwar and SM Zafar. It said that those judges who had refused to take oath under the PCO did so according to their conscience and “heavy responsibility lay upon the judges who took oath (under PCO) for dispensation of justice.” The SC stated that its judgment, validating the military takeover, was universally acclaimed and had been described as a landmark judgment.

The court said it could proceed to take action against Hamid Khan, president of SCBA, but it was always appropriate to exercise restraint. “However, we reserve the right to take the proper action at an appropriate stage.” The SC said: “Unfortunately, some members of the Bar, motivated by malice, extraneous considerations and for political reasons or ill-will, make irresponsible statements to tarnish the image of the judiciary which is not at all in the supreme national interest.” The SC said it “strongly deprecate and condemn this attitude on the part of Hamid Khan and considering the contents of this application scandalous, malicious and irrelevant, we order that paragraph (I) and (II) therefore be struck off.” The SC said it had highest respect for those members of the bar, who have shown respect to the judiciary. By making such attempts the members of the bar were abusing the sacred elected office, it said. The court further observed that by taking oath under the PCO the judiciary had “saved the independence of (the) judiciary as well as the system of administration by preserving the Bar as well.” “Failing which the bar would have been replaced by all together a new system unknown to a civilised society.” It said that judges took oath under the PCO “in the highest national interest, and therefore we have deliberately not chosen to proceed against Hamid Khan in view of the interest of the institution, “but we reiterate that we reserved our right to proceed against Hamid Khan, contemner.”

The court observed that Hamid Khan knew that all the points which had been raised in the review petition had already been dealt with in the judgment, and the court would not allow re-hearing of the matter. The court said that knowing full well the consequences of the review petition, the counsel deliberately declined to argue the case “motivated by malice, ill-will and extraneous considerations.” The court said that review petition was fixed for hearing on Oct 28 when a request for adjournment was moved on behalf of Hamid Khan, expressing his inability to appear before the court on the said date due his unavoidable personal obligation and prior commitments. The bench assembled in the court to consider the aforesaid request for adjournment when, surprisingly, the court noticed the presence of Hamid Khan in the courtroom who came at the rostrum and submitted an application under the caption “Statement at the Bar”. The court said that it was high time that counsel like Hamid Khan and the members of the bar realised their responsibility towards the courts and the society. “If this state of affairs continues then God be with us and nothing more could be said about it. As a consequence of the above, this review petition has no merits and the same stands dismissed accordingly”, the court concluded.