ISLAMABAD: While hearing the government’s petition against the court's directives given to Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to write a letter to the Swiss authorities, the Supreme Court denied the attorney general's request to form a larger bench, Express News reported Wednesday.
Attorney General Irfan Qadir said that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 and the government’s review petition in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case were interconnected and that a larger bench should be formed to hear the cases.
Heading a five-member bench, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa snubbed the attorney general’s request and said that the hearing of the review petition does not have anything to do with the NRO implementation case.
The attorney general argued over the composition of the bench and said that it cannot be changed to hear review matters.
The attorney general also requested the court to reschedule the hearing of the review petition after Eid, as the judge who was replaced in the bench will be available after Eid. However, this request was also denied by the bench.
While presenting his arguments before the bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, AG Qadir said that a few actions do not come under the domain of the prime minister and writing a letter to the Swiss authorities is one such action.
He argued that the court should not give directives to PM Ashraf which he cannot comply with.
During the last hearing, the Supreme Court had directed Ashraf to write a letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@A J Khan: For your kind informations PPP has already terminated him from PPP's core committee and has taken back all from him all the powers of giving any statements regarding PPP and the Supreme Court......
It would be unfortunate if the current prime minister is also disqualified and a contempt notice is issued to the president. These actions would be an extremely destabilizing development, especially if the PPP-led federal coalition decides to appoint a new prime minister who also refuses to write the letter. Will the Supreme Court then disqualify him? There is another dimension to the current political situation in Pakistan. We are witnessing another type of power struggle between the elected institutions and non-elected state institutions. In the past, this struggle was between the non-elected military and the elected civilian institutions. Now, the non-elected Supreme Court is endeavoring to expand its domain at the expense of the elected parliament and the elected executive. Such an effort can strengthen the position of the Supreme Court in the political system but it cannot rectify the ills of the political system or remove the so-called corrupt politicians from the political scene. It would mere result in destabilization of nascent democracy. Judiciary must show some restraint because another blow for democracy could be fatal.
**Hey Supreme Court what about Mumtaz Qadri who the murderer of former Governor Punjab.
PPP has been held hostage because of the ultra right wing of this country. Should they fight them or the mullahs etc**
@Mahesh Patil:
The supposed constitutional immunity that the President has needs to be claimed in the court; Clause three of the article says
"No civil proceeding in which relief is claimed against the President or Governor ..."
Which clearly means that the relief (immunity) is not automatic in civil cases and needs to be claimed.
Why do you think no PPP lawyer so far has presented the argument of immunity in any of the proceedings so far? it's simply because they know that they will loose the argument.
Everyone seems to forget that it is not the courts but the government and PPP that are being belligerent.
@Micheal Cohen: How do you expect AG to assist in CJP's mis demeanour? As far as Mr.Zardari is President he enjoys immunity.Dont you think all world will laugh at Pakistan if Prime minister himself asks foreign country to reopen the cases against President and face trial in foreign court?
I suppose pakistan was built for people and not for judges who are extraordinarily advantaged .The judiciary seems to have taken over the running of the country They addrrese themselves as WE. it is for every body to see that what mr QADIR IS SAYING IS CORRECT AND HGE IS TRYING TO STOP THEM FROM FALLING IN THE ABYSS OF DISGRACE FOR EVER. SOON PEOPLE WILL BE LAUGHING AT THIS LOT
With or without the present CJ, the law must take its own course. The merits/demerits of writing to the Swiss Courts have nothing to do with the CJ or with a larger bench. The present bench is fully competent and capable of imparting justice.
I have been following up on the proceedings taking place before the highest court in Pakistan. The professional attitude of the Attorney General has been quite rude and at time un-professional.His primary duty is to assist the court and not become a tool for political government.
I think its better for court to give more time to Government because this is a political case and any further mistake in this will politicize the court further and ultimately effect the nascent democracy and credibility(whatever left) of courts
@Ahmer Ali: @Maliha Ahmad: Chief Justice should clear his name by opening case against Abidi who has been talking loose on TV against the CJ.
Actually PPP's government is taking every possible step by using any delaying tactics and lame excuses to take time from the Supreme Court by taking dates so that tenure could be completed and in this purpose PPP is seeming successful because in Nov/Dec the government may/shall be dissolved for the next general elections in March 2013 and PML-N is fully supporting/backing up PPP in this regard behind the scene........
@Logic Europe: its Qadir not Qadri....Qadri is not not a very appreciated name and you know why
I salute mr Qadri for upholding the law He is brave intelligent and has integrity,
SC should accept for larger bench if they want to be fair n unbiased in proceedings..