The Supreme Court on Friday in a short order declared the new law of contempt of court 2012 as unconstitutional and illegal and held that new law was an attempt to undermine authority of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court held in the short order that new law was in conflict with Article 63(1) (g) of the Constitution, according to which, if a person has been convicted/sentenced for ridiculing the judiciary, he will be disqualified to hold a public office.
The order moreover said that granting immunity to public office holders was in violation of the Constitution.
It stated that the government did not have the authority to formulate the rules for contempt of court, adding that, the law was an attempt to curtail the independence of the judiciary.
It also declared that the Contempt of Court Ordinance‚ 2003 shall be deemed to have revived with effect from 12th of July 2012 when the new Act came into force.
A 5-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Shakirullah Jan, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Jawad S Khawaja and Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani heard various identical petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act, 2012.
During the hearing, Attorney General Irfan Qadir presented his arguments before the bench.
Addressing the bench, Qadir said he had utmost respect for the court and that the court “should not be displeased”.
The AG moreover said that he could not afford to divert “even an inch away” from the Constitution.
Upon which, Justice Jawad S Khawaja said: “You end up moving two to three inches away from the Constitution”.
“No, I have not moved away from the Constitution to even a centimeter,” Qadir said.
Moreover, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain said the new law failed to mention several terms pertaining to contempt of court.
To which, the AG said that if the new law was viewed in mathematical terms it would get complicated.
Justice Khilji Arif Hussain said the terms of ridicule; scandalisation and contempt of court were not present in many sections of the law.
Responding to which, Qadir said: “It does not make a difference and the essence of the contempt remains in the new law.”
The CJ said that a law could not broaden a concept addressed in the Constitution, adding that, the new law even included magistrates in the definition of a judge.
The AG stated that he had worked with a number of judges and that he had been told that a judge was a judge where ever he/she is.
Good. The Supreme Court has once again acted in the interests of justice and defended the Constitution in the face of an attempt to mutilate it.
Well, here we go again!
this verdict is not a surprise at all .supreme court is totally biased against the government.these judges should resign and set up a political party of their own.
Justice party
Oh ya set up a new party?? Why does not zardari(mr 10 percent)wityh his corrupt team go some where and set up a govt of his thinking where there are no people.he shud go to the high sea and make an island form a cabinet,pass laws and rule over fish.
Pakistani people are clearly against such laws and he has no authority to have such laws passed for his own benefit only.
People have sent this bunch of people to serve them best not to serve their own interests.
Parliament Shocks
Judiciary Rocks !
Judicial disco dance goes unabated
Persons are not Sovereign. Soveriegn Parlamint have no Autherity to make Changes in Laws For Courrpt persons. If The prime Minister Him self disobeying and not immplementing the Supreme Court Order than it will be crulity to impllement courts order on other citizen or the common man only obey the courts orders
The Supreme Court has acted in defence of the Constitution and justice
Let it not be said that the Supreme Court did not do it's duty. If it had agreed it would have opened a pandora,s box. Let us put an end to this now and move on to tackle bigger problems which lie ahead.
The common man's perception of S.C is enhanced. No more talk of immunity but talk of justice for all.
Hence proved, Parliment is not sovereign
parliament is not acting with responsibility ….the result was as expected. ….S C rocks..
Law is supreme not the parliament. If Parliament is supreme and can make any law then let me know can it make a law declaring the gay marriage legitimate?
Comments are closed.