Speaker ruling case: Supreme Court issues detailed verdict
The verdict, which comprises 42 pages written in Urdu, gives reasons for the disqualification of the former prime minister including the fact that Gilani did not appeal against the verdict given earlier by the seven-member bench, making the decision “final”.
Also in the detailed verdict is a statement that says Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza did not need to issue another verdict on what had been the final one by the court. Instead, according to the detailed verdict, she should have just forwarded the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan.
On June 19, the court had declared Yousaf Raza Gilani ineligible to hold office, adding that he had been disqualified since April 26.
COMMENTS (28)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731998460-0/Express-Tribune-(1)1731998460-0-270x192.webp "lahore second karachi ranks fourth in world s most polluted cities list")
@M Usama Kabbir: I note the non-lawyers are commenting again.
@Qais: this is justice Pakistani style.
From now on, our judges will disregard legal principles set by the superior judiciary or scholars in other countries, they will just follow Pakistani constitution as explained by our lordships. "It is about time, sixty-five years after independence, that we unchain ourselves from the shackles of obsequious intellectual servility to colonial paradigms and start adhering to our own peoples’ Constitution as the basis of decision making on constitutional issues.(Jawwad S. Khawaja) Judge"
According to the PCO SC, the only good decision PM Gilani ever made was to release them and later restore them. The rest of the decisions by the unanimously elected PM were all wrong.
This is how Supreme Court of other democrcies llok at the world ( a copy from as deision):
The standard under s. 12 is stringent, demanding and highly deferential to legislative choices. The state may “impose a ‘treatment or punishment’ on an individual where it is necessary to do so to attain some legitimate end and where the requisite procedure has been followed”: Smith, supra at 138. The Supreme Court has repeatedly adopted the following statement:
It is not for the court to pass on the wisdom of Parliament with respect to the gravity of various offences and the range of penalties which may be imposed upon those found guilty of committing the offences. Parliament has broad discretion in proscribing conduct as criminal and in determining proper punishment. While the final judgment as to whether a punishment exceeds constitutional limits set by the Charter is properly a judicial function, the court should be reluctant to interfere with the considered views of Parliament and then only in the clearest of cases where the punishment prescribed is so excessive when compared with the punishment prescribed for other offences as to outrage standards of decency. R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3 at 77. See also Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385 at 1417; Goltz, supra, at 494.
A recent legal research paper explains how wrong Justice Khawaja is when he says Parliamentary supremacy no more exists.
'Parliamentary supremacy and the re-invigoration of institutional dialogue in the UK' by Fergal F. Davis (Parliamentary Affairs, June 25, 2012)
@M. Rashid Hai:
"""""Those who are supporting this decision will one day regret"""""
No one is able to see the future..
But those who supported, or kept quite, on the decision of making Asif Ali Zardari (shouldering bundle of corruption charges), as PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY, must be regretting by now. Generally,majority of the public was unhappy at that choice, except his pals. Today's chaos is the direct result of that unauspicious decision.
so.. will this be another pearl of our judicial wisdom/activism!!
The CJ did the greatest job by writing the verdict in Urdu - the Official as well as National language - so that on could not mingle the English words 'Need not' and 'can not', and made the verdict absolutely unambiguous. Please accept the verdict with grace and don't make the Supreme Court controversial. Further, please, wait for another such verdict in near future.
@M Usama Kabbir: Just recently! Mohammad Asif (Cricketer) is planning to appeal against the verdict issued by British Court. Same case is here PM should have appealed against the "Verdict". Why he did not is another story!
This judgement is written in Urdu to avoid international legal experts from reading it. For sure this is a political judgement. Constitution bars any court scrutinizing the speaker's order. They have done it. A very dangerous precedent has been set by removing the PM by a court. Those who are supporting this decision will one day regret.
And would the honourable PCO judges please elucidate the reasons for retroactive disqualification which tantamounts to high treason?!
Another flawed judgement by a judge who has made Justice Munir seem a saint in comparison.
How could the speaker let go of this opportunity to show her loyalty to his highness and the PPP. Respect for the constitution? Rule of law, that is secondary
@Kashif: "No one will remember Gilani" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Or miss him.
@A J Khan: Such comments are justified only from those citizens who are not concerned with illegal outflow of country's wealth.
@M Usama Kabbir: It's the conviction that is to be appealed against. The sentence was a Symbolic one. Also, even if it were sentenced to a year, he would have been jail for that time until its overturned in appeal so it was all correct and normal legal procedure that was followed.
Also in the detailed verdict is a statement that says Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza did not need to issue another verdict on what had been the final one by the court.
It says the Speaker "Need not", but this does not mean she "cannot". There is difference between the two. The court's judgement is flawed. And why this time the order was written in Urdu? Strange days are these when to include poetry the official language is changed.
Ex-PM should had worked to protect democracy, and NOT his "master"..
"Why they don't Leave..... who's stopping them...."""" that was our PM.............. Caring and loving to his people........ He deserves what he that.
PPP does not know the difference between something in Constitution and something which is not in Constitution.They say that Prez. immunity is in the Constitution, so no need to question it. Post of Deputy PM is not in the constitution, so its ok to create one!
PPP government is turning politics into a daily drama. It looks like NAB, FIA and other Law Enforcement Agencies are part of this dramatic and political understanding with mutual consent and complete indulgement of phony acts with no progression plan, yet deserted with no hopes and false acts. PPP keen wish and ultimate desire to superseed with baseless facts and at the same time SC should also co-operate with them so PPP can win their ultimatum to vacate Pakistan day by day.
i think detailed decision is worth reading, then it could be analysed whether SC acted within constituion or not or whether Speaker act was constitutional or not.
On the whole it was a flawed judgement.
What about the various actions/decisions taken by PM during the period he perormed as disqualified PM?
No one will remember Gilani
This Court is beyond my comprehension. How can someone appeal against the verdict when he has already been sentenced and completed the sentence too ! PM was convicted and was sentenced to 30 seconds in teh SC. He completed his sentence ! What on earth could he have appealed against? And if the SC finds it so that the speaker should have forwarded the case to EC why did the SC acted like EC? Why did it not send the case to EC? This is absurd. A 7 memeber benchon 26th April says ' It is likely that the question of disqualification rises' and a 3 member bench decides the PM stood disqualified from 26th April ! This verdict will go down in our history as the worst ever practical joke by the SC.
I think nation is not interest to read with detail judgement as the needful has already been done