Three SC judges refrain from joining bench for PM’s appeal

[gazoomartian]

SIBI: Three judges of the Supreme Court have excused themselves from being part of the appellate bench which will be constituted to hear Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s appeal in the contempt of court case against him, DawnNews reported on Tuesday.

Speaking after inaugurating the premises of Balochistan High Court (BHC) Sibi Circuit Bench, Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary said that a nine-member bench of the apex court would be formed to hear the case if the government decides to appeal against the court’s verdict.

However, the CJP inhibited himself from disclosing the identities of the three judges who excused themselves from the bench.
Chaudhry further said that the apex court was taking an additional judge and two ad-hoc judges because a seven member bench had given its verdict and now a nine member bench will have to hear its appeal.

“Three of the nine existing members of the appellate bench cannot hear the case. If the appeal comes to us then there are six remaining judges,” said the CJP.
“Article 181 and 182 of the constitution contained provisions to meet this situation,” he added.

Moreover, the chief justice reiterated that all the institutions of the country should work under ambit of the constitution.
The Supreme Court convicted PM Gilani of contempt of court for not writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari as ordered in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case.

The PPP-led government has said that it will wait for the apex court to pass a detailed judgment before filing an appeal.

source: http://dawn.com/2012/05/01/three-sc-...or-pms-appeal/

[Beatle]

What would you call this type of journalism? Yellow? No, perhaps not.
Still detailed verdict of SC is to be announced.
Then PM's legal team will have to prepare appeal.
SC Registerar will decide its admission - yes Or No.
And finally CJ will constitute a bench.

Whome this reporter is representing, and who is paying him. Would be interested to know.
P.S.: Date line of the story is SIBI - a far flung area in Baluchistan and thousand of kM away from the power centers !!!!!!!!!!

[gazoomartian]

Can some one please comment what are the impacts of this refusal by3 judges?

I cant figure out any but I am not familiar with legal craps.

[zeshaan]

Yeh loog bhaghtay rahain gaay too insaaf koon karay gaa?

[f4faizoo]

Can some one please comment what are the impacts of this refusal by3 judges?

I cant figure out any but I am not familiar with legal craps.

well it gona delay the case to such an extent as the govt pleases........ cuz the proposed judges for appointed on ad hoc have to be approved and notification issued by the president......... now i dont have to go into detail......... u know the answer..........lol

[UKPakistani]

Can some one please comment what are the impacts of this refusal by3 judges?

I cant figure out any but I am not familiar with legal craps.

I do not think they have refused, but are unable to be part of the Bench for other reasons and so can excuse themselves

I believe one of the three may be related to the convict, another through illness and the third is otherwise engaged

But what do I know

"senior judge Mian Shakirullah Jan is serving as acting Chief Election Commissioner while Justice Anwer Zaheer Jamali is sick.
So far as Justice Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani is concerned, he had already avoided the hearing of PM’s case. " (hint in the surname)

[Sean jee]

Judge sahibaan iss liye dar rahay hain, kay next election mian yeah jahil qoom phir inni chooroo ko kahien na vote dey! Phir yeah choor wapis aa ker inn ka jeena haraam ker dien gay.

[Shareef]

If the report be true and if the judges have refused to be part of the bench, then they should be dismissed forthwith, as a judge without moral courage cannot administer justice boldly elsewhere too. This is a test of their moral and professional courage. They should be part of the tribunal and judge with their conscience which ever way the verdict goes. Abstinence in this case is more detrimental to justice than giving a wrong judgement.