–Chief Justice Nisar says no one can ‘kick the judges out’ of the country; court won’t react to criticism
–Says court can extend punishment for contempt from prescribed six months
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday declared criticising the courts equal to disobeying the constitution.
The CJP said this during a hearing on the Elections Act 2017, which allowed disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif to become the head of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
CJP Nisar said that the court will not react to criticism as the people of Pakistan are fully aware of everything and are the best judge. He then referred to Article 5 of the Constitution: ‘loyalty to the state means loyalty to judiciary’.
Another judge Justice Ijazul Ahsan also stated that attacking the constitution falls under the scope of Article 5 of the Constitution, while Justice Umar Ata Bandial added that the people stand with the apex court.
“No one can kick the judges out of the country,” said the CJP.
Meanwhile, counsel for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Latif Khosa questioned why the judiciary keeps ignoring former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s speeches against judges. He argued that Nawaz fooled the court and the common man by being elected as the head of the party.
“I think you don’t know about wisdom,” the chief justice answered and ordered Additional Attorney General Pakistan (AAGP) Waqar Rana to submit a complete debate on the Election Act.
Later on, the chief justice remarked that the court can extend the designated contempt of court punishment of six months.
During the hearing, the three-member bench also discussed the legal precedents regarding the judges’ response to accusations levelled against their judgements.
In an indirect reference to the former premier’s recent public rallies against his disqualification, the CJP observed that they can neither hold public rallies nor ask for raising hands.
Making his submissions, Barrister Ali Zafar told the court that the judiciary has the authority to decide the period of a minister’s disqualification.
Zafar, a judicial assistant to the court, said that the parliament had kept the Article 62(1)(f) open to interpretation “on purpose”. Justice Nisar however, said that there must be a criterion to determine the period for which a minister can be disqualified.
“We [the court] cannot disqualify one person for one year and another for five years,” the CJP said.
The court agreed that a candidate could be disqualified for several reasons that may or may not require a court decree to be justified. Justice Saeed said that a person could be disqualified if he is 25 or fewer years of age even if he is a Pakistani citizen, which is the foremost condition for an assembly member.
Limiting himself to Article 62(1)(f), Barrister Zafar said that the article could be divided into three parts. He elaborated his argument by listing the three conditions of Article 62(1)(f): the candidate must not be a spendthrift and must be honest and mature. The bench raised questions over the first condition, asking how would a court determine whether a person has unnecessary expenses.
Barrister Zafar said that the minimum period of disqualification must be five years, however, a person must not be banned from holding office for life.
On January 1, the Supreme Court (SC) declared maintainable the petitions challenging the Elections Act, 2017, a part of which paved the way for Sharif to head the ruling party despite his disqualification as a parliament member.
After hearing preliminary arguments from petitioners, the apex court bench issued notices to Sharif, the PML-N and secretaries of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), National Assembly (NA) and Senate.
The hearing has been adjourned until 1pm Thursday.
Additionally, Nawaz informed the SC on Tuesday that he will not attend the proceedings against the Elections Act 2017.
Many legal experts ( including Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed and Mr Aitzaz Ahsan) said the Apex Court issued a ‘soft’ verdict in Panama case. It were not to be, the situation today could be different and those cursing, abusing and insulting the SC in corner meetings, could be behind the bar.
What about who actually ‘kicked the judges out’? why we don’t see any reaction on such humiliation of judiciary and only the criticism is not digestible only due to civilian govts.are always week and don’t any danda/boots?
Except naming the honorable judges of the Supreme Court, to be booted out of the Supreme Court, Talal Ch said all the rest; to his heart’s content.
Comments are closed.