ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, while hearing petitions agains the contempt law, has said that the parliament has the right to form those laws which are needed and have a reason behind them, Express News reported on Tuesday.
The case was being heard in the Supreme Court by a five-member bench comprising Iftikhar Chaudhry, who headed the bench, and Justices Shakirullah Jan, Khilji Arif Hussain, Jawad S Khawaja and Tassadduq Hussain Jilani.
During the hearing, the federation’s counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, said the parliament’s authority over law making could not be challenged, reports Dawn.com.
He argued that the new law did not restrict the judiciary’s power in any way and that the law had not been passed to undermine the judiciary, to which the chief justice said that the new law, contradictory to the government’s beliefs, had flaws and being a matter of public interest, could be moved to court.
The petitions had been filed against the new contempt law the very next day after it was signed by President Asif Ali Zardari.
The contempt law was said to be aimed at protecting newly elected Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf from being forced to write the Swiss letter.
In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had refused the federation’s request for more time to prepare arguments.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Is "The Express Tribune" owned by Malik Riaz? You only put up comments which ridicule the CJ.
In which country does a CJ give speeches almost on a daily basis? Judges are supposed to speak through their judgments. While all kinds of statements are made on the missing persons issue including "We can call the COAS for testifying", "We can get FC arrested" etc. there is no judgment. Also no contempt of court proceedings against Dg FC who blatantly disobeys court orders.
The superior judiciary of Pakistan is oversteping its jurisdiction by taking cases in violation of the age of cases. While old cases are waiting for lack of time, the new cases are given priority by exercising the judicial discretion. The common man has to wait in queue while the chief takes up the cases of his liking at his whim and fancy.
The PCO CJ said "the parliament has the right to form those laws which are needed and have a reason behind them" Just like the SC can take only those cases that are needed and have a political reason behind them, while ignore all the pending cases rotting for decades. In fact the legislature should get the bills approved prior to making the laws from the biggest Choudhry of them all. One wonders was Gen Mush so wrong in throwing the CJ in detention?
Because ZARDARI is extremely patient and diplomatic ,mr chaudhary is able to make these sweeping statements ,HE is not supposed to be making public announcements ,, he is a public servant and has little power e.g can he give extension to himself or can he increase his salary? only parliament can do
When it comes to the powers of judiciary, the judges site the 'Trichotomy of powers' principle..however, there are no such considerations when the judiciary tramples the rights of the parliament...Chief tere dohray meyaar beshumaar....
seems like some sort of compromisation is being enacted by balancing the Arsalan case with the PPP government remains a floating.
When ever court feels a law is needed they they can order parliament to make law or if parliamentarians want a law then they should forward relevant law to SC first who represents will of people . If supreme court approves then they should send to parliamentarians to sign it. Once approved by SC then it is mandatory on parliamentarians to approve it. Vow
And you My Lord going to decide???
There was a time when the statements of the judges of the Supreme Court carried merit, weight and a point of law but that is history. To the PCO Chief Justice, Sir it is the parliament which is going to comment on the need for law, any commentry by the Courts on the same or on the quality of debate in parliament, or on the voting patterns of the parties is ultra vires to the Constitution. You can only interpret or strike down the law if it parts ways with the Constitution but nothing else.