Pakistan

A clash of institutions?

Express April 20, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Senior lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan said on Tuesday that the undermining of parliament's power by the judiciary will result in a clash between the two organs of the government.

Talking to the media outside the Supreme Court building in Islambad, he said parliament has the right to amendment the constitution.

Aitzaz Ahsan, who is also the former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said 17 judges cannot reject decisions made by parliament, which represents 170 million people. He, however, said the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution.

Aitezaz Ahsan's claims incited a heated response from lawyer Akram Sheikh who said the supreme court has the power to suspend an amendment indefinitely. Akram Sheikh had filed a petition on behalf of Nadeem Ahmed in the supreme court challenging the establishment of the judicial commission.

COMMENTS (8)

Fakhar | 14 years ago | Reply Those challenging the supremacy of Parliament are strengthening non-democratic and non-elected institutions.The honorable Melords have one point agenda to marginalise the Parliament, President, Prime Minister and his government.Constitution gives President immunity but CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry does not recognise it.Constitution gives Parliament the powers to legislate and amend the constitution but CJ Chaudhry is unwilling to recognise it.Constitution empowers the PM to use his discreationar prerogative to appoint bureaucrates to run his government but the CJ Chaudhry does not allow the PM to do that.How funny that the same Melord CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry gave dictator Musharaf powers to amend the constitution and not only validated his Martial Law but gave a ridiculous permission to rule Pakistan for three years.This is mockery of justice. CJ Chaudhry has imposed Judicial Martial Law and has crippled the government's capacity to solve common man's problems.All PCO judges including his highness CJ Chaudhry should resign since they have committed acts of high treason by validating Musharaf's ultraconstitutional steps in their judgements and by taking oath under his emergency orders in 1999 and 2007.I appeal to CJ to resign and let the nation strengthen hard earned democracy and let the democratic institutions function.

s ashar | 14 years ago | Reply There are some lawyers who demand respect, and some who command respect. atizaz ahsan commands respect. why has he sigled out himself, lawyers listen to him and his strong legal acumen.why can he not call a meeting and sort out the legal provisos. AFTER ALL IT WILL BE THE LEGAL PROVISOS WHICH WILL BE A DECIDING FACTOR AND IN ALL NORMS OUTWIEGH NOT YOU AND ME AND THE VOCAL -- ALL IN NATIONAL INTEREST

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Wasil Arian | 14 years ago | Reply I suppose Aitzaz has correctly assessed the position, yet his contention of clash among institutuins is not only uncalled for but also unforunate. His contribution as a leading activist in Lawyers' movement for restoration of present judiciary is remarkable, but it in no way gives him right to alarm and frighten unnecessarily.

idiota | 14 years ago | Reply http://pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part11.html

Naveed | 14 years ago | Reply I for one was ever told that the party whom I voted in elections will be doing these amendments. So when people say 170 million wanted this 18th amendment.......I get really confused.

Fayyaz Alam | 14 years ago | Reply Parliament is soverign. Courts interpret the laws made by Parliament. An independent judiciary is vital but Judges must remain within their role. The courts must follow what Parliament decides, doesn't matter how strange it may sound. “If Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence then, in the eyes of the English courts, it is an offence". Sir Ivor Jennings

Wasif Shakil | 14 years ago | Reply Can Prliament amend Constitution or not? This debate is beyond logic as if this august House is not authorised to legislate as per the wishes of its voters then who else? A trial before trial has begun before the court even started hearing petitions which may undermine the verdict in this regards. New leadership of lawyers with some help from media is bent upon declaring Supreme Court above Parliament. For those who does not know what the Contitution says about Parliament's powers about legislation Article 238 and 239 are written. 238.Amendment of Constitution Subject to this Part, the Constitution may be amended by Act of [255][Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)]. [256] [239.Constitution Amendment Bill (1) A Bill to amend the Constitution may originate in either House and, when the Bill has been passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be transmitted to the other House. (2) If the Bill is passed without amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent. (3) If the Bill is passed with amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall be reconsidered by the House in which it had originated, and if the Bill as amended by the former House is passed by the latter by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent. (4) A Bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that Province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership. (5) No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever. (6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.]

Naseem Akhtar | 14 years ago | Reply The beauty of democracy lies in the separation of powers of all the three organs of state. But there is always check and balance on all the institutions. If supreme court found an article or law against the fundamental principles of our constitution, then it has the right rather power to interupt. I think, if executive and legistlature are performing their duties then judiciary must not leave the people and country alone in dismal state.

Replying to X