'Sadiq' and 'Ameen' not defined in Constitution, observes SC

Petitioner had requested the apex court to interpret the meanings of both terms in regard to PM disqualification case


Hasnaat Malik October 16, 2014

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, while hearing the prime minister's disqualification case, observed that there is no definition of ‘Sadiq’ (honest) and ‘Ameen’ (righteous) in the Constitution.

A petitioner requested the apex court to interpret the meanings of both terms in this case.

During the hearing, Justice Dost Muhammad Khan said the definition of ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ were not included in Article 260 of the Constitution.

The three-judge bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, resumed on Thursday the hearing of an appeal, filed by Gohar Nawaz Sindhu of the Insaf Lawyers Forum, against a verdict of the Lahore High Court (LHC) which had dismissed his petition for the disqualification of the prime minister last month.

The petitioner claimed the premier had first asked army chief General Raheel Sharif to act as a ‘mediator’ between the government and protesting parties – the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) – and to serve as a ‘guarantor’ to any agreement between the parties concerned.

He alleged that the premier had later lied in front of Parliament and had denied making any such request to the army chief.

The bench directed the petitioner, Sindhu, to submit his formulations regarding the case. Similarly, it also summoned the attorney general for assistance regarding the maintainability of this petition.

The bench also decided to delink two petitions, filed directly by Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and PTI leader Ishaq Khakwanai, to disqualify the premier.

The petitioner also stated that parliamentarians had made a law of contempt of court, but no legislation has been made to stop defamation of the army However, Justice Khawaja said that the court does not make the law, only interprets it.

The hearing of the case is adjourned until next week.

Our Publications

COMMENTS (25)

ishrat salim | 6 years ago | Reply When the constitution of 1973 was re-introduced by the PPP govt with 18th amendment, it was sent to the SC for their review & ,if any. They reviewed it with deliberations under ex CJ Mr Ifthekhar & many clarifications were sought by SC. The article 62 & 63 with certain revision from its original form was also inserted by the " Constitutional committee " under Mr Rabbani & its team in the 18th amendment. Why was this article not clarified by SC at that time ? if they would have clarified these 2 articles at that time, today, it would not have this excuse ?
Ahmed Ali Khan | 6 years ago | Reply

Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. Therefore, what Islam gives the definition of Sadiq and Ameen it should understood the same. This is not a rocket science. Actually these judges are bought by NS so they gives verdict as per their boss. The big example of Musharraf in the recent past is in front of us. The verdict of every case came from the PM's office. That is the reason you will see that the reserved the decision for a future date. Perhaps they would consult the PM's house. When this is the case then how can anybody expect a verdict against NS.

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