‘Courts only interpret the Constitution’

Federation’s counsel urged the Supreme Court to give a ‘landmark judgment in the 18th Amendment case.

ISLAMABAD: Federation’s counsel Ibrahim Satti on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to give a ‘landmark judgment in the 18th Amendment case’, setting a new example in the constitutional history of the world, especially for the US, the UK, France and India.

Satti made the plea before the 17-member bench of the apex court hearing identical petitions challenging certain provisions of the 18th Amendment.

On this point Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday directed the federation’s counsel to keep his arguments straight on the specific point and not to breach the rules by making “false statements”.

“Do you (Mr Satti) know that the court’s orders are not being implemented by the rulers in our country to the letter?” Justice Ramday asked.

“The courts can only interpret the Constitution and are not entitled to strike down amendments passed by the parliament,” said Satti. “The Parliament is entitled to bring changes in the Constitution following the formula of necessity of laws,” he added.

At this Justice Asif Saeed Khosa told the federation’s counsel: “Don’t insult the Constitution by putting across such frustrated arguments.”

Justice Javed Iqbal countered the views of federation’s lawyer, Sardar Ghazi, that previous system of judges’ appointment was faulty. He said that judges appointed through the parliamentary committee would not be angels.

Ghazi also presented some irrelevant arguments before the court, inviting the judges’ annoyance.

He argued that “there was no pressure group in the lawyers to pressurise the judiciary in judges’ appointment process.”

Justice Javed Iqbal remarked that justice was not done during the formulation of the 18th Amendment.

During the course of the proceedings Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that democratic system will be saved at all cost and all the institutions will work under the specific laws, including the judiciary.

When Ghazi started appreciating the court and the CJP for his bold stand before a military dictator, Justice Ramday asked: “You (Mr Ghazi) were an ardent supporter of former President Musharraf but how come you were negating his November 3 emergency rule?”

Ghazi replied in a subdued tone, “It was only done for the sake of ‘dal and dalia’”

This was the core reason behind the chaos, Justice Ramday added.

Later Satti argued that the Parliament has unfettered power to amend the Constitution. In support of his formulations he cited the Maulvi Tameez-ud-Din Case, while the court observed that it was not relevant.

The proceedings will continue on Wednesday (today).

Published in The Express Tribune, August 4^th, 2010.