While questioning the passage of the new Contempt of Court Act 2012 by parliament, the Supreme Court on Wednesday had a few words for the opposition: what was the point of a walkout?
While hearing identical petitions against the new act on Wednesday, a five-member bench, headed by the chief justice, said the opposition should have resisted the act’s passage in parliament instead of staging a walk-out.
“The opposition should have stayed in parliament to resist the ruling party’s move,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
“Have you ever heard of a walk-out from the US Congress; what kind of conduct is this?” Justice Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani remarked.
The court also obtained a record of parliamentary proceedings to see the time consumed in the debate on the act.
It was presented during Wednesday’s hearing by federation’s counsel Abdul Shakoor Paracha.
‘Constitution does not allow ridiculing the court’
Chief Justice Chaudhry further questioned that if the prime minister has no immunity for contempt proceedings despite Article 248 (1), how could it be extended to the president or governor under Article 248 (2).
Quoting examples of former US presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, he said that no one could violate the order of a magistrate’s court, adding that the Constitution does not allow ridiculing the court in the name of immunity.
Just as the attorney general stood up from his seat to reply, the court asked him to address the question on his turn.
Justice Jilani termed contempt of court powers as the only tool in the hands of the judiciary to enforce its judgments.
“We respect the parliament. They are representatives of the people. We do not have inflated ego. We are just worried about the system,” Justice Tasaddaq Jilani said.
Meanwhile, Advocate AK Dogar, the counsel for one of the petitioners, described the contempt act as a “stillborn” piece of legislation, elaborating that it was a constitutionally dead law. “Judges would become paper tigers, unless the judiciary has a sword and a shield in its hands,” he said.
Advocate Abdul Rahman Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of another petitioner, said the act was a mala fide legislation, enacted without a proper debate. He said that in a way the entire parliament was made hostage and its independence usurped.
The chief justice, however, told him that such a grievance, if existed, could only be raised by a member of the parliament.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 26th, 2012.
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
What right the SC has to dictate the opposition what to do and what not to do?
@Ch. Allah Daad: But the parliamentarians hardly abide by laws they make and they cannot enforce them anyway for anyone. The writ of the Government is negligible. More importantly they do not make very useful laws anyway. Judges are getting better but the Government needs to improve a lot.
@ Justin Truthful, If you kindly read history of previous 65 years, these uneducated elected representatives have not made a single law which has harmed Pakistan. The recent contempt law is far less harmfull than giving absolute authority to a dictator to change and amend constitution. Who authorized this power to a dictator, your educated judges..should we trust them again?
Supreme court should also ask PTI that why it did not fight Multan by election seriously?
CJ is absolutely right. If you are in he opposition, favor or oppose a bill through your vote not walkout. What good a walkout makes.....
When the parliamentarians are rarely educated, hardly sincere, mostly feudal, have little knowledge of law and politic for petty gains, someone has to educate them. So when there is no one to perform this duty, the CJ is doing a duty to do the needful. Let us get real, instead of harping on political theories or practices of developed democracies. For us, “Dil’lee (Dehli) door ast.”
One thing should be clear to judiciary that Parliament does not fall under any institution. Court has a role of interpreting the constitution. Parliament makes law.
This is the biggest joke of the century. The Chief Justice of a country is deciding that in Parliamentary democracy who and witch party should stay and fight and when should they walk out and should vote etc. Great day. Justice Katju was very right when he said Pakistan judiciary has gone BERSERK>
Few years back, a friend of mine was murdered by his second cousin on eid night in the presence of his five year old son and seven years old niece on main Jinnah Road Quetta. The murderer was recognized by the witnesses and was given death sentence by the Session Judge. Few days back he was released honorably by the High Court. Do you thing that the children of the innocent man murdered on eid night will respect the judiciary. After waiting for years and fleeced of money by the Lawyers, the family is standing where it was on the first day of the murder. It also implies that after few years when the child grow, he will have to leave his studies and get justice the tribal way.
“The opposition should have stayed in parliament to resist the ruling party’s move,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. This is the Political Side of our Judiciary.
Finally the PCO CJ has taken control of the proceedings in the parliament also. He must be the in charge of setting the agenda, debate duration and which bills to be discussed. This would save lot of resources by not passing the laws which were going to be rejected by the court anyway. The CJ should put a min and max time for the debate on each bill while at it. In addition the PCO judges should continue to support and encourage Sharif party to stay and fights in parliament not simply walk out rather paecefully.
“The opposition should have stayed in parliament to resist the ruling party’s move,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. These remarks speaks about the role of Judiciary in Politics.
Just decide the case on merit, dont act as mentors for politicians.Speak only through your decisions not through your comments or speeches.
Opposition has abdicated it's role and responsibility.They are as much to be blamed for the mess the country is in as the party in power