PHOTO: CREATIVE
A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk and comprising Jutice Gulzar Ahmad and Justice Mushir Alam, will take up the LHCBA’s plea for holding a preliminary hearing, wherein senior lawyer Hamid Khan and Shafqat Chohan will argue the case.
Earlier, a general house meeting of the LHCBA on January 12 had allowed its elected leadership to challenge the 21st Constitutional amendment before the Supreme Court.
Mian Ahmad Chachar, the bar secretary, had presented a resolution before the house that was passed unanimously.
The LHCBA is also arranging a second All Pakistan Lawyers Representative Convention on January 28 in this regard.
SC's decision lauded
Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Yasin Azan, while talking to The Express Tribune, welcomed the SC’s decision to fix the pleas against the establishment of military courts.
He said the Pakistan Bar Council has already summoned its special meeting on January 27 to decide whether they should directly move a plea to the SC against the setting up of military courts.
“I will strongly urge the superior bars in the upcoming meeting that we should approach the apex court against the new constitutional amendment, as it has completely destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution,” he said.
An insider, however, said that though PBC and SCBA representatives are opposing the establishment of military courts, they are divided over filing a petition against the 21st amendment, therefore, there is a lower chance of both bars collectively challenging it.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1729161093-0/liam-(4)1729161093-0-405x300.webp "article")
This definitely proves that Pakistani civil courts never want to prosecute the terrorists because civil courts are absolutely unable to punish the terrorists and the terrorists are released on bail from the civil courts......
@A J Khan: @John B: Please get advice form any constitutional expert. Supreme Court has constitutional authority to strike down any parliament act and constitutional amendment which is contrary to fundamentals of constitution and basic human rights.
Supreme Court, high court, civil courts all judge saihban failed to deliver justice,,, but they will not support military courts... Try there best to reject military court law
Assuming that the petition is argued, PAK SC has already established a precedence of "doctrine of necessity" clause. I wonder how the bench will argue against that when the Gov invokes that argument.
In any case, SC has no jurisdiction in hearing whether an amendment to the constitution by the parliament is a violation of constitution. Such arguments are limited only to the constitutional body, the parliamentarians.
SC jurisdiction is limited to laws and execution of procedures of those laws emanating from the constitution. That is the established norms of constitutional law.
There is no constitutional provision which empowers Supreme Court to strike down constitutional amendment. Under 6. High treason.—1[(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
Our judiciary his this very habit of meddling in everything. I have never seen them solving any issue rather they hamper executive machinery by dragging everything to court . Had our judiciary been impartial and performing in its true letter and spirit , we would have not seen this day where cases will be now heard by Military courts. Though i'm not in favor of military courts but we desperately need them in these extra ordinary circumstances. LONG LIVE PAKISTAN
courts in pakistan always keep watching streets for dispensation of justice, SC is not going to strike down the amendment