Arguing the case: Attorney general falls flat before SC

Irfan Qadir fails to cite a single judgment in support of his arguments.


Qaiser Zulfiqar August 04, 2012

ISLAMABAD:


The usually fiery attorney general of Pakistan was put in an embarrassing position before the Supreme Court on Friday when he failed to respond to simple legal and constitutional questions about the history of contempt of court law.


Irfan Qadir could not cite even a single judgment in support of his arguments that the contempt law was sustainable.

“I am confused as to how to respond to your queries,” he admitted, when Justice Jawwad S Khawaja corrected him on the enactment of contempt law in the past.

“Hear now with ears open, the court will tell you about constitutional history of the country; we are here for your assistance,” said Justice Khawaja.

The poorly-drafted law invited laughs from the petitioners in the case when they highlighted blunders in the draft made by the legal team of the government.

Attorney General  Qadir told the court that he too was against the act initially when he first saw its contents in the press; however, later when he read it, he found it to be a piece of correct legislation.

The bench expressed amusement, however, when he advised the court to read out the Constitutional provisions which were omitted or amended through the new law, saying that parliament has powers to pass any law.

Justice Tassaduq Jilani asked the attorney general “Are you conscious of its consequences?” Qadir confidently replied saying yes since there was no conflict.

He, then, advised the court to show restraint and added: “Due to non-implementable orders, we lost one prime minister and now we should harmonise”.

However, the chief justice further told Qadir to “obstruct from your mind” the idea that the court will do any “muk mukka (deal)”.

Qadir also offered reconciliation but the court found his arguments irrelevant. The chief justice told the attorney general that going hand-in-hand with the rulers was impossible for the courts.

“The court will remain neutral instead of becoming a party in any case,” Chief Justice Chaudhry said.

In its judgment, the court also observed that the federation’s lawyer, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, confessed that the new law was introduced in haste because the court had already disqualified one prime minister, and it feared it could disqualify another one, in the NRO implementation case.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2012.

COMMENTS (3)

Mohammad Khan Sial | 8 years ago | Reply

The question is not of writing a simple letter. The real question is to uphold the sovereignty of the Parliament and Constitution. Constitution gives President immunity. Whenever he would be no more President, letter would be written as per rules.

Now the sovereignty of the Parliament is also in danger. Those who do not recognize the sovereignty of the Parliament, must read preamble of the 1973 Constitution.

It is very sad the chief justice who among others exonerated military dictator General & racist Musharraf is now claiming Parliament is not sovereign. Constitutional experts must give us briefing irrespective of their political affiliation.

Aurangzeb Humayun | 8 years ago | Reply

@S K Afridi: The letter should now be written. After all there is something fishy in Swiss Bank accounts, lot of things have been proved. PPP Govt should take a bold step to write letter to Swiss authority otherwise this will further downgrade PPP led Govt. After the decision of SC on Contempt of Court the Raja Sahib is left with no choice except to write letter to Swiss Authority or immediately step down in order to safe his political career.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ