New questions, new complications
Legal, constitutional and political questions may arise when parliament starts proceedings to implement SC's order.
ISLAMABAD:
A host of legal, constitutional and political questions may arise when the parliament starts formal proceedings to implement the Supreme Court’s interim order.
The clause that the Supreme Court has asked to be reviewed is the very one that was a sticking point between political forces, more specifically the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N), to begin with.
At the forefront is likely to be the argument whether the revised ‘rules of the game’ can be framed under the ambit of the 18th constitutional amendment or will a 19th one be needed, a move that requires a two-thirds majority in an increasingly polarised parliament.
Senator Raza Rabbani, who is on an official visit to UK, has called an informal meeting of the 27-member constitutional reforms committee on November 1 to take stock of the new situation. He has also asked the members not to make any comments on the judgment till the matter is debated in the meeting.
The first issue to be tackled is whether the same committee that finalised the recommendations for the 18th amendment should be empowered to revisit article 175-A as per directions of the court, or will a fresh panel be formed.
There are divergent views among legal experts on the issue, some of whom claim that the previous committee stood dissolved after it sent its recommendations to the parliament, which adopted them by a two-thirds majority – a requirement to make any amendment to the constitution.Others are of the view that the same committee can continue working informally.
However, a member of the body, Justice (R) Razzaq Tahim, has died and his party PML-F will have to nominate a new member.
Professor Khurshid Ahmed, who was a member of the Raza Rabbani-led committee, told The Express Tribune that a fresh resolution will have to be passed by the two houses of parliament to constitute a new committee. It is not unclear if the members will be the same or not.
He said the constitutional reforms committee was formed for a specific purpose and it ceased to exist the day it accomplished its task and handed over the reforms package to the parliament for approval.
To corroborate his point, he referred to a recent meeting of the members of the committee held in the parliament house, while the 18th amendment case was being heard by the Supreme Court. He said this was an informal meeting of members and not a formal meeting of the committee.
Waseem Sajjad, who represented PML-Q in the parliamentary committee, said: “Yes, there is confusion… but it is not a big issue. If needed, a fresh resolution can be passed by the two houses. The previous committee can also conduct proceedings informally”
The apex court has outlined certain parameters under which Article 175-A would have to be rectified. It will be interesting to see if the parliament keeps itself confined within the parameters the court has circumscribed, or will it go beyond them to “establish supremacy of the parliament”.
Many legal experts believe that the court’s order is binding and the parliament is asked to just put its stamp.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2010.
A host of legal, constitutional and political questions may arise when the parliament starts formal proceedings to implement the Supreme Court’s interim order.
The clause that the Supreme Court has asked to be reviewed is the very one that was a sticking point between political forces, more specifically the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N), to begin with.
At the forefront is likely to be the argument whether the revised ‘rules of the game’ can be framed under the ambit of the 18th constitutional amendment or will a 19th one be needed, a move that requires a two-thirds majority in an increasingly polarised parliament.
Senator Raza Rabbani, who is on an official visit to UK, has called an informal meeting of the 27-member constitutional reforms committee on November 1 to take stock of the new situation. He has also asked the members not to make any comments on the judgment till the matter is debated in the meeting.
The first issue to be tackled is whether the same committee that finalised the recommendations for the 18th amendment should be empowered to revisit article 175-A as per directions of the court, or will a fresh panel be formed.
There are divergent views among legal experts on the issue, some of whom claim that the previous committee stood dissolved after it sent its recommendations to the parliament, which adopted them by a two-thirds majority – a requirement to make any amendment to the constitution.Others are of the view that the same committee can continue working informally.
However, a member of the body, Justice (R) Razzaq Tahim, has died and his party PML-F will have to nominate a new member.
Professor Khurshid Ahmed, who was a member of the Raza Rabbani-led committee, told The Express Tribune that a fresh resolution will have to be passed by the two houses of parliament to constitute a new committee. It is not unclear if the members will be the same or not.
He said the constitutional reforms committee was formed for a specific purpose and it ceased to exist the day it accomplished its task and handed over the reforms package to the parliament for approval.
To corroborate his point, he referred to a recent meeting of the members of the committee held in the parliament house, while the 18th amendment case was being heard by the Supreme Court. He said this was an informal meeting of members and not a formal meeting of the committee.
Waseem Sajjad, who represented PML-Q in the parliamentary committee, said: “Yes, there is confusion… but it is not a big issue. If needed, a fresh resolution can be passed by the two houses. The previous committee can also conduct proceedings informally”
The apex court has outlined certain parameters under which Article 175-A would have to be rectified. It will be interesting to see if the parliament keeps itself confined within the parameters the court has circumscribed, or will it go beyond them to “establish supremacy of the parliament”.
Many legal experts believe that the court’s order is binding and the parliament is asked to just put its stamp.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2010.