Please, not again

Published: June 23, 2012
The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore

The writer is a lawyer and partner at Ijaz and Ijaz Co in Lahore

It is always slightly discomforting when one is deprived of a metaphor or an agreed upon symbol. ‘Dictatorship’ — of the Pakistani variety — has been defined over the years and now we have the definition down cold, it is almost an intuition now, for e.g., it is khaki in colour, comes from the GHQ etc. However, in the past few days, the term, ‘judicial dictatorship’ is making the rare appearance here and there. This is, admittedly, an awkward term and also perhaps, inaccurate since it seems to suggest that judiciary as a collective is becoming dictatorial. Over the past four years, the authority and decorum of all courts in Pakistan except the Supreme Court has seen tremendous erosion, with lawyers routinely beating judges up in civil courts and using ‘non-parliamentary’ language in the High Courts. There is no point in euphemism now, hence somewhat more precise would be the even more clumsy phrase, ‘dictatorship of the Supreme Court’ or some permutation thereof.

The Pakistan Supreme Court has sent an elected prime minister home. This in itself is disturbing, however, permissible it may be under some circumstances. What is infinitely more worrying is the fact that the Supreme Court did not feel itself constrained by the procedure of law. The argument that the order of the Speaker cannot overrule the Court is a very decent one, yet does not explain why the Court ignored the clear provisions of the Constitution to send the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan. There is also the issue of the three-member bench making a mockery of the seven-member bench. However, there is a vaguely linear progression to all of this. The Supreme Court terminated the employment of  “PCO” judges without reference to the Supreme Judicial Council, which was allowed to go unexamined. More recently, when memberships of members of parliament were suspended for dual nationality, again without reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan, not enough noise was created. Demagogy has a tendency of being incremental sometimes; they have tested the waters and now found it appropriate for a splash. It is likely to get worse now, it always does.

Even now there is a curious reluctance to unequivocally condemn, or mildly speaking, criticise the judgment of the Supreme Court. Yousaf Raza Gilani and his maladministration is not the issue here, the issue is considerably more fundamental, namely the right of the people to elect their representatives and also to send them home. The Supreme Court does not represent the will of the people and the Court repeatedly saying so to the contrary would not change that. Let me also say this about the law of contempt, if the Court in fact does believe that it represents the will of the people then it will have to make its peace with the fact, that people talk and also talk back.

The problem with the perception of selective justice is that it compromises all justice. The contempt proceedings against the corps commander at the time of November, 2007 emergency have not really taken off, the IG FC has still not appeared in Court, the Asghar Khan petition is still pending, the case of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar is not being heard daily (the cynic might also raise the issue of the timing of the PM’s disqualification as a diversionary tactic from the focus on the fantastic entrepreneurial success of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar). Remaining on timing, does anyone else find it strange that the arrest warrants of one of the designated candidates for prime minister are issued as soon as his name is proposed? It does push the ordinary serendipity of coincidence a bit. None of this maybe personal, however, it certainly gives that impression.

Leo Tolstoy begins Anna Karenina with: “Happy families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” It is painfully ironic to see how the Supreme Court has gone the full circle and joined the ranks of the previous “Happy families” of Pakistan. From sending judges of the superior courts to now sending the prime minister of Pakistan home. The anger at the slightest bit of criticism by the media resembles our gallant masters of the past. The impatience and not feeling the need to give reasons, the short orders, grand poetic epitaphs and ‘because I say so’ arm-waving and desk thumping. There is a visual image of a few days ago, which does concentrate into a microcosm the similarity. It was a video on some television channel of the Pemra chairman standing with his hands almost tied in front like an orderly, a man obviously broken and being humiliated in a room filled with judges either reclining or leaning in with contempt. I wonder nobody, not one judge thought it appropriate to ask the chief justice to allow the man a chair as it was not a court proceeding but an administrative meeting convened to watch on a projector screen the leaked video of Malik Riaz. (The Pemra chairman has since suffered a heart attack; I restrain myself from speculating on correlation, although it would be good speculation). The parallel video image summoned to mind is that of my Lord, the chief justice resisting with genuine bravado while being bullied by Musharraf and his cronies to resign and that of My Lord being pushed and shoved by contemptuous and contemptible foot soldiers of Musharraf. The moral texture of both images has unavoidable similarities. I was repelled then and I don’t like it now.

My Lords probably are driven by the best of motivations and believe them to be the saviours who would rid us from the corrupt, incompetent government. Firstly, My Lords are not vested with the power to do so. Secondly and more significantly, we appreciate the concern but no, thanks anyways. We will be glad if we are allowed to exercise our right of making our own mistakes. My Lords have seen Musharraf and his arrogance up close and personal and it is with utmost deference I quote Habib Jalib “Jo shakhs tum se pehle yahan takht nasheen tha/ Usko bhi Khuda hone pe itna hi yaqeen tha” (“The person occupying the throne before you was equally convinced of his divinity”).

Published In The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2012.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (72)

  • Raza Khan
    Jun 23, 2012 - 9:37PM

    “Jo shakhs tum se pehle yahan takht nasheen tha/ Usko bhi Khuda hone pe itna hi yaqeen tha” (“The person occupying the throne before you was equally convinced of his divinity”).

    Beautifully said Saroop! You are simply superb! Love you. Keep it up.


  • Aryabhat
    Jun 23, 2012 - 9:44PM

    Very thoughful and very timely article! ET leaving up to class of its own! Well done!

    Writer has correctly pointed out cases slowed down conveniently when it does not suit Judge/s! Least we forget, current CJ was one of the judge who validated Mushraf’s Coup!

    Whatever intentions, Judiciary is expanding in to executive space conveniently forgetting Newton’s third law, every action will have some reaction !

    Yes, the impression of Judicial dictatorship is building up and rightfully so.


  • afzaalkhan
    Jun 23, 2012 - 9:52PM

    Law must be superior, parliment is not supreme. Recommend

  • Chums
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:04PM

    Oh God thank you so much for this Saroop! Brilliant!


  • Tj
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:16PM

    I agree , strange things happen in our country, unheard of anywhere else in the world.


  • Lala Gee
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:23PM

    Although I am a fan of your writings on the issues of religious extremism and rights of minorities, however, this particular article is a sheer disappointment. Your narrative is very biased reflecting your political affiliations rather than of a neutral observer.


  • faroow
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:26PM

    saroop, I agree that it is selective justice, but do you honestly believe that pakistani hostage electorate is capable of any accountability of the corrupt ruling elite, my dear it is not democracy. it is a mockery of democracy. it never was and believe me it never will be until political culture changes drastically, any ideas on that my friend?


  • Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:28PM

    The belief of infallibility that prevails among individuals and institutions and its consequences thereof could not have been elaborated better. Saroop Sahib, thank you for this fine article.


  • rafe
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:36PM

    And let me tell u some thing unfortunately SC is the only institution in Pakistan rite now which is representing the true will of the people.


  • Jpy
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:39PM

    A very thought provoking article. Kudoos to the saner voice. Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jun 23, 2012 - 10:44PM


    “The Supreme Court does not represent the will of the people”

    Really. Courts are neither required to, nor need to, represent the will of the people – at least in the sense you mentioned – because they are only obliged to follow the laws and the provisions of the Constitution – which is the ultimate will of the people. Otherwise, following your logic, all of their decisions would need to be mandated by the people (parliament) in order to establish their legitimacy. Moreover, all the MNA’s, MPA’s would be beyond the court’s jurisdiction, as they “represent the will of the people”.


  • Khurram Khalid
    Jun 23, 2012 - 11:05PM

    Only such op-eds are needed which say things loud and clear. Good.


  • Hadia
    Jun 23, 2012 - 11:09PM

    Wow.. I lost my interest after the third paragraphRecommend

  • Jun 23, 2012 - 11:35PM

    Amazingly lost, One fail to understand the motive of the writer, Selective Justice, Hmm, quite selective, as it is only assisting the poor of the society, and ensuring that the minority does not destroy the majority. Will of people, Again what was will of people when Steel Mill was about to be sold, for a price all we educated people know very well. What about Missing people, Our elected, ( So called ) leaders fail to recover people. What about Billions recovered in Rental Power scam. My friend who so blindly talk about people right to chose their leaders, fail to analyse, that once leaders go bad, there has to be a constitutional way to keep the nation life moving. While criticizing today, we are failing to look far a head. An assembly full of Nawabs, Sardars, Chaudharies, Shah’s hardly represent the ordinary people in Pakistan. Those ordinary people who came out on street to reinstate this Chief Justice to ensure these corrupt elements can face the punishment with the force of law. Let’s establish a rule of law society.


  • Imran Con
    Jun 23, 2012 - 11:39PM

    and if you don’t allow them to use their authority per the constitution, you’re breaking laws. So, yeah, you’re right. Law comes first. It’s just a shame your being right makes you wrong here with the topics your comment is directed at.


  • elementary
    Jun 23, 2012 - 11:40PM

    Regardless if they are elected or not ,corrupt should be dealt as corrupt and criminal as criminal. Is this too musch to ask? does this endanger democracy ??


  • elementary
    Jun 23, 2012 - 11:52PM

    Just want to clarify a factual point ,which is a popular myth in our culture,and is used to give an emotional twist to your argument.
    Heart attack happens when arteries to heart clog,as a result of smoking,cholesterol,Diabetes etc,it’s occurence at a stressful event is more often than not a coincidence and never the cause.


  • Abdul Jabbar PTI
    Jun 23, 2012 - 11:54PM

    a few valid points but overall, a disappointing article


  • observer
    Jun 24, 2012 - 12:02AM

    I am still looking for the Article in the Constitution that gives power to COAS Presidents and PCO Judges to dismiss an elected PM. Can anyone point such provisions to me, please.


  • Freeman
    Jun 24, 2012 - 12:21AM


    Look for the article where the convicted person cannot be member parliament.


  • Fan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 12:21AM

    Saroop. – you talk so much sense! :D kind of idealistic, but alas, to be ideal, one requires patience, to perfect the system, we require patience….which pakistanis seldom possess.


  • Parvez
    Jun 24, 2012 - 12:43AM

    @faroow: Thank you for this very perceptive comment.
    I am a fan of Mr.Saroop but I very often disagree with his views. He refuses to recognise that difficult times, call for difficult solutions and times in Pakistan are extremely difficult to put it mildly.


  • afzaalkhan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:21AM

    @Imran Con

    Law should be supreme and equal for everyone that nullify the argument that parliment is supreme. I should say constitution is supreme. SC has never stopped the executive to exercise authority, it has stopped the executive from misusing that authority.


  • Mustafa Kamal
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:42AM

    Love your writing Saroop!!Thanks!!


  • Amjad
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:46AM

    As i argued earlier in one of ET’s article in the morning, its pretty clear that ET’s writers are all against CJP (Judiciary) and are all of them Pro-PPP.

    what else do you need to understand this fact. Go to ET archives and roll back your calender and find out an issue where its PPP vs everyone/anyone and you will find ET’s writers favoring PPP. what’s up with this attitude ET. you are claiming to be a national Newspaper for Godsake.


    Jun 24, 2012 - 2:29AM

    Brilliantly written… your best work yet!


  • Logic Europe
    Jun 24, 2012 - 3:02AM

    Any body who tells the truth is unacceptable in the land of pure
    I enjoy your writting so much that i dont want jt to finish
    No one can eradicate corrution Recommend

  • Jun 24, 2012 - 3:48AM

    What a masterpiece this column is!


  • rafiq
    Jun 24, 2012 - 4:42AM

    an understandable superb analysisRecommend

  • Sonya
    Jun 24, 2012 - 7:21AM

    @Amjad: I do not agree with you, the issue must be covered from all aspects and angles. It looks like that you want see only one side of it. Judges serve the law and Government serve people – and when Judges start serving people instead of law, it ceates imbalance in the state structure and leave the people (educated)in a big shock.


  • anticorruption
    Jun 24, 2012 - 7:47AM

    The assertion that this is about the people’s right to choose their government is based on a serious misunderstanding of a constitutional democracy. The whole point of having a constitution is to lay down some rules that even the elected representatives are supposed to follow and even the will of the public is subject to. Otherwise, if the PM is allowed to do as he pleases and openly violate any court verdicts he does not like, then why have a constitution and an independent judiciary?

    The standard penalty for openly and deliberately disobeying a court verdict is contempt of court. A convicted person is not allowed to be a member of parliament under our constitution and this is how it should be. If the judiciary has enforced these provisions of the constitution, it does not mean democracy has been undermined.


  • Jun 24, 2012 - 8:37AM

    Bar Council should speak. That is their duty.


  • raw is war
    Jun 24, 2012 - 8:47AM

    and why not?


  • choptocut
    Jun 24, 2012 - 9:26AM

    great work ….keep it up


  • Goatam
    Jun 24, 2012 - 10:54AM

    this article is too good. Bold and beautiful. The courage of writer to write about SCP is applauded. And the quoting of habib jalib in end – wah wah. Keep it up MR Saroop.Recommend

  • khan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 11:05AM

    one would be stupid to believe that these politicians truly represents will of the People.
    OMG!!! what have happened to you educated people.


  • Neha khan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 11:09AM

    @Lala jee
    It is supposed to be an op-ed not a news item and in op-eds you can surely express your opinions. One can always disagree with the expressed opinion but cannot complain about one expressing his views in an op-ed. By the way, I am yet to come across an op-ed by Saroop Ijaz to which I do not agree. He is brilliant each week every week.


  • Sultan Khan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 11:11AM

    @afzaalkhan: Yes, mother is not supreme; her child is.


  • Neha khan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 11:13AM

    @ Amjad
    I recommend you read The News or Jang, they would definitely make you happy :))


  • Jun 24, 2012 - 1:02PM

    An excellent analysis and timely wake up call. All those who are criticizing are missing the point completely and charged with emotions and propaganda machines working over time.


  • Moderate Pakistani
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:12PM

    I see another babar awan in the making.


  • Hassan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:41PM

    sir great stuff, you have hit the bottom.Recommend

  • Uza Syed
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:52PM

    @Lala Gee: Lalu Gee, read it again, a bit, carefully and focus on the message and forget the messenger for a sec. this will help you save yourself from the much greater disappointment that you are goin to experience and not too distant a future. Think about Lalu Gee.


  • observer
    Jun 24, 2012 - 1:56PM

    @Neha Khan

    I recommend you read The News or Jang, they would definitely make you happy :))

    I would recommend The Nation and too.


  • Sohail
    Jun 24, 2012 - 2:00PM

    Saroop sb, is shutting down twitter an act of dictatorship?


  • Parmid
    Jun 24, 2012 - 2:35PM

    @Zulfiqar Ali Syed: Had the Steel Mill been sold for just Re 1, we would have been better off a billions that have gone down the drain in subsidies could have been better spent. Recommend

  • Jun 24, 2012 - 3:15PM


    Very Well Written.. We have forgotten what our rights are as Pakistani..Recommend

  • Truth Detector
    Jun 24, 2012 - 3:36PM

    If you disagree with Saroop Ijaz, your comments are not posted…


  • Tch tch
    Jun 24, 2012 - 3:43PM

    @Truth Detector: LOL even the “likes” are mysteriously vanishing…


  • Mmanna888
    Jun 24, 2012 - 3:48PM

    Seen khaki, see black, will see yellow dictatorship of the media. We shall sea, come what may, we will survive.


  • A Peshawary
    Jun 24, 2012 - 3:55PM

    What an idea to be recommended by 44 as when I read. The people deserve what they are getting keep recommending these ideas and Pakistan will become a proud, prosperous and whatever nation.

    A Peshawary


  • shahid
    Jun 24, 2012 - 3:58PM

    Not a fair comment. The writer commits the same mistake for which he blames the SC. The write-up lacks balance, and over-states the case of SC over-stepping its jurisdiction. He offers one-sided advice to SC to avoid confrontation with elected PM. Does being elected means doing whatever one likes? We need to strike a balance between democracy and rule of law. But sadly the most here are more interested in taking sides.


  • Umair
    Jun 24, 2012 - 4:03PM

    Dear writer, with all due respect.
    You seem to be against this CJ and the Court in general.

    You say the PEMRA chief was not offered a chair and was humiliated.

    please see this video of the pemra chief being questioned:

    The pemra chief is offered a chair and is talked to in a very polite manner by our CJ.

    You say the SC is going overboard.
    The fact is that we have more FAITH in the CJ than we have in our hopeless and corrupt politicians.


  • Hadia
    Jun 24, 2012 - 4:11PM

    @Truth Detector:
    or, are truncated.


  • afzal Khan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 4:15PM

    Nice articlee by the author.He is representing the true picture.keep it up.


  • Lala Gee
    Jun 24, 2012 - 4:19PM

    @Neha khan:

    “It is supposed to be an op-ed not a news item and in op-eds you can surely express your opinions. One can always disagree with the expressed opinion but cannot complain about one expressing his views in an op-ed.”

    Off course, the author has every right to express his opinion but when that opinion cross the limits of impartiality then the author is bound to lose the credibility that a neutral critique enjoys.


  • Baghi
    Jun 24, 2012 - 6:10PM

    Well done Saroop. Superb article. All are not dead in the society. Very soon nature is going to teach those who are doing injustices. Unfortunate thing with mankind is not to learn from the history. But nature is going to force them to do so.


  • observer
    Jun 24, 2012 - 6:14PM


    Had done that. Found Article 63, which reads,
    63. (1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:- (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release
    2) If any question arises whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall, unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty days and should he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Election Comission.

    (3) The Election Commission shall decide the question within ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat shall become vacant.]

    To simplify this further,

    (i) Speaker will decide if a question of disqualification has arisen.
    (ii) If yes, the matter will be referred to the Election Commission.

    The Speaker had decided. If the SC dis agreed , it should have referred the matter to the Election Commission.

    The Constitution does not provide for PCO Judges deciding this. TRY AGAIN.


  • Sheheryar
    Jun 24, 2012 - 6:21PM

    Mr. Saroop if we accept your narrative that Zardari Not CJ is a people elected, then your argument is straight away reject-able .This is the only Judiciary and CJ who came through tremendous Public support. I can guarantee you that Zardari can not gather the 10% of the support that he enjoys. Point is very simple which you are trying to dodge, that top leadership should stop robbing the nation and stop doing corruption. Be clean. Is not what People of Pakistan look in a clean leadership? At least I do. Therefore, If you be a thief and have clear intention to rob the nation, then the watch dog must step forward. Democracy is a system of governance and if we need such corrupts to run the system then any system can be better than that. For God sake, Do not start giving me examples of dictatorship now against democracy. Both are “CHOR” with present ‘ So called” democracy even more “CHOR”. You want to see a better system without democracy who became the Superpower? Look at your Northern neighbor. So convince me that Democracy without accountability is OK for you. And the Only watch dog for that can be NAB or Courts. Systems should be Important , not personalities. What Joke is this , Z.A. Bhutto—> Benazir—> Zardari—-> Then Bilawal ?How amny generations will we have to wait to have a real democracy??? What is this? Monarchy or democracy? . Recommend

  • Nida khan
    Jun 24, 2012 - 6:45PM

    Judiciary is just a part of the government’s infrastructure. It is only there to facilitate the working not to create obstacles. Parliament is the supreme head,not the supreme court!


  • Jun 24, 2012 - 8:01PM

    Reading comments here speaks volume about the power of propaganda and how it can actually divert the opinions and minds of people.. these people have even snatched us the right to think independently let alone to let us chose and fire our leaders..


  • Amed
    Jun 24, 2012 - 8:26PM

    A good article and very valid arguments are presented.


  • Tch tch
    Jun 24, 2012 - 8:46PM

    63. (1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:- (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial… the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary

    Its pretty straight forward. No appeal was filed so the charges can be considered final. No role of the speaker if contempt of court is the charge per caluse. If it was a corruption case the speaker could use her discretion, but not in this case. The clause is very unambiguous.

    But even if we take your bogus position that a question actually does arise in the Speakers imagination and she fails to forward the name to ECP, the result is the same.
    and should he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Election Comission.
    The ECP de notified PM Gillani in the end.


  • Anonymous
    Jun 24, 2012 - 9:05PM

    @Tch tch:
    In constitution paragraphs that follows or section that follows has more weight age than preceding section .
    In paragraph 2 speaker is given discretion
    All subsequent amendments in US constitution have more weightage then original constitution clauses.
    SC is writing a parallel constitution. I am very happy. When tables will be turned then same things can be applied to paymasters.
    People like u condemned even the application of Islamic injunction of qisas when that was applied to RD.people like u raised questions when Sajjad Ali shah wanted review of laws passed and finally attacked court .
    In not distant future people like you will read the constitution differently when judge from smaller province will give ruling differently or attack court.
    Speaker is post office and can be by passed as you and judges wish.. Election commission has to denotify not decide as per your wishes where constitution says ECP has to decide and then denotify.


  • gp65
    Jun 24, 2012 - 9:38PM

    @Nida khan: “Judiciary is just a part of the government’s infrastructure. It is only there to facilitate the working not to create obstacles. Parliament is the supreme head,not the supreme court!”

    Like you I agree that this judiciary is overreaching and dismissing the PM was not within its scope of duties.

    Having said that I must point out that judiciary is NOT a part of government infrastructure. Most countries have 3 distinct arms : legislature (which the parliament is in Pakistan), executive and judiciary. Also parliament simply legislates – it is NOT the government. The government or executive is PM, his cabinet and all the ministries that fall under it. Your statement would have been accurate if you replace judiciary by armed forces. This is because army IS part of the government (or executive) and its voice is heard in the cabinet through the defense minister. Recommend

  • Farooq Bashir M.Phil,LLB
    Jun 24, 2012 - 9:59PM

    Saroop you are right that our judicial system is based on selective justice whereas the Devi of Justice do not discriminate.


  • antanu g
    Jun 24, 2012 - 10:36PM

    Same judiciary was a bunch of angels against MUSHARRAF…..what an irony?


  • Zain Umar
    Jun 25, 2012 - 12:03AM

    Dear Mr.Saroop

    If Chief Justice does not represent ‘Will of the People’ according to you, then why did millions gathered for his restoration? Yes, I vehemently point towards Long March. Chief Justice is democratically restored through ‘Will of the People’ and You have to respect that sentiment, just as you regard your Shaheeds in Ghari Khuda Baksh.

    In Simple English PEOPLE!


  • Tch tch
    Jun 25, 2012 - 12:36AM

    You did not address my point. Adhominem attacks dont help lets have a useful discussion instead. The Clause 63 (1) g leads to automatic dismissal. Just like the dual nationality case did under 63(1)c and Pakistan Citizenship act 1951.
    The text you and I both referred to is the modified text of Article 63 as per the 18th Amendment, which this government it self passed.

    But let suppose we take the contention that question does arise regarding the disqualification. 63(2) makes it very clear that the Speaker is bound to send it to ECP. If she chooses not to, in 30 days it deemed to have been referred. Constitutionally she has no discertionary power in this matter. Its understandable as the Parliament would become a rubber stamp if such overreaching powers is given to the party selected post of the Speaker.

    You chose to ommit 63(3) which clears any confusion.
    (3) The Election Commission shall decide the question within ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat shall become vacant.]
    The current ECP have agreed that the Disqualification was valid.
    Its not about interpretation a layman can read the text which is unambiguous. The ruling coalition can always amend the constitution again and could also appoint a new ECP, but it chose not to. The Courts are bound to apply the constitution come what may.


  • Muhammad Wajid
    Jun 25, 2012 - 1:17AM

    Constitution is supreme.Dictatorship of constitution which can be exercised best by Supreme Court is needed for stabilility of state and to control hightech white-collar criminals who escape justice through technicalities of law and constitution as well as using democracy as a tool to fool the people.Democracy in developing countries divides the people and further deprives of basic necesssities.Democracy here is helping elite class and different mafia to rule ,loot and to further strengthen their hold on masses by exploiting their misery through paid and consent manufacturing media campaigns.Recommend

  • Anonymous
    Jun 25, 2012 - 8:31AM

    @Tch tch:
    CJ decided that YRG stands disqualified and ordered Ecp issue notification.
    He should have said that speaker has no right to do any thing, as question of disqualification has risen and ECP should decide and if valid then notify.
    ECP denotified in 90 minutes? Is any member denotified so swiftly.
    Difference between dual citizenship and this is great as dual citizen was not eligible to contest election as dual citizen ,so he or she stand disqualified for falsifying like a convict cannot contest election and he contest election later found out that he was convict.. Here a members disqualification issue is raised and speaker has to decide.
    If there is no need to involve speaker and ECP then with any decision SC denotify. Why to involve those two organs of state.

    I think Saroop has put it eloquently that CJ as dictator as Mush was difference is that he holds pen in one hand and Quran in other and Mushraf had gun.
    I am personally happy at behavior of this court and Shahbaz sharif because when tables will be turned no body should say anything.


  • Jun 25, 2012 - 9:24AM

    @Parmid: Better Spend by who? Does what we have is better spend. Me and you can not be provided appropriate level of protection, yet PM, CM, Ministers, even their advisors, have numbers of Police, Ranger’s and army security guards. Better spend is myth, A national asset was about to be disposed off to fill pockets of few, Mr Short Cut Aziz, has worked for Indian Steel giant.


More in Opinion