An eight-member Supreme Court larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, will take up an intra-court appeal today to decide the fate of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in the contempt of court case. Aitzaz Ahsen, counsel for the prime minister, on Wednesday filed the appeal against the decision of a seven-member bench that summoned his client on February 13 to indict him on charges of committing contempt by not implementing court orders in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case. Ahsen, who will for the first time since the restoration of the judges appear before a bench headed by the chief justice, requested the court to accept and allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the seven-member bench, withdraw the show-cause notice forthwith in the interest of justice and suspend the proceedings before the seven-member bench until a decision on the appeal. In the seven-page appeal, Ahsen has raised 54 legal points and sought relief on the grounds that the order of the seven-member bench was devoid of any reasons as evident from its bare perusal, as it merely reflected the conclusion reached that the court was satisfied that it was in the interest of justice that further proceedings should take place in the matter. “No grounds, explanation or reason has been given in support of this conclusion. There is no discussion as to the basis on which the satisfaction of the court was achieved, nor is there any elucidation of how the interest of justice would be served by proceeding further. None of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant is recorded in the impugned order. The justifications put forward by the appellant in support of his plea that the show-cause notice should be discharged are not even alluded to. It is manifest that the impugned order has been mechanically passed,” he stated in the appeal.
BUT,WAIT N SEE THE OUTCOME.
It's true that "None of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant is recorded in the impugned order." — going a step further the SC did not provide the reason why it believes that those arguments don't apply.
This is extraordinary for a for a SC in matured judicial system (around the world)…
Comments are closed.