The legal intricacies involved are complex; no doubt, a roomful of legal experts could battle over them for hours. The Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land and all institutions must function within the parameters laid down by it including the parliament. On the other hand, it is the legislature which draws up the constitution in the first place. The matter is an intricate one, wrapped in a ribbon of controversy which is difficult to entangle. This has been a problem which other nations have also encountered in various points in time of their history.
The issue here, however, lies in the timing. The chief justice’s remarks, which perhaps add to the general sense of confusion in the country, come just as parliament prepares to carry through a new bill, putting in place a law that would protect parliamentarians from contempt of court proceedings. The implications are obvious given the recent political back drop of former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. For this reason, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is but naturally eager to avoid a similar fate. Another law, allowing those who hold dual nationality to hold parliamentary seats is also envisaged. It is unfortunate that our institutions have struggled so much to work together smoothly. This exposes us to many dangers and an even greater threat to a democracy that is struggling to stand on its feet.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 10th, 2012.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714117028-0/BeFunky-collage-2-(1)1714117028-0-270x192.webp)
1714370039-0/ojwilson-(1)1714370039-0-270x192.webp)
-(1)1714378140-0/AliAminMaryam-(4)-(1)1714378140-0-270x192.webp)
This is the matter of territorial war where mafias kill each others and do not care anyone innocent killed with their stray bullets.
Article 190 reads: "All executive and judicial authorities through out Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court." The question of favour does not arise. Please quote correctly before starting a debate. Does any one see a reference to "parliament"? How might you want to stretch Article 190?
Very well written editorial. This will happen when one institution exceeds its boundaries and try to oversmart the other
Well written article, and I completely agree with the view expressed. Just a thought: across the border in Iran we have the concept of velayat-e-faqih or guardianship of the jurist. Here the supreme leader, the jurist is superior to both parliament and the president all in the name of Islam. Is this what ifthikar chaudry wants?
"Article 190 of the Constitution, which states all institutions must act in favour of the Supreme Court" One example of a change that has to occur. Not because the concept is wrong. But because of how vague "act in favour" is. That can be stretched to even give them the ability to allow a judge to cite someone with contempt if they disagree with a judge violating every single traffic law just because they have to get to court. Yes, that's an exaggeration, but it's to get the general idea across, not to give a true to life example. It makes they, themselves, not accountable to anything if they can somehow bend their motive to have involvement with their job.