Article 69 of the Constitution

[Dr Adam]

Yes thats what Ive been saying since yesterday. Article is very clear and cut. SC ko bund mein awein dard utha aur suo moto ley liya when just a day or so back they threw out a petition exactly on the basis of this article.

This is clear interference of the court in the political process.

سپریم کورٹ کا مختصر ترین فیصلہ : سارے غدار اپنی بکواس بند کرو، او شیر جواناں قاسم سوری خوش کیتا ای چِھک کے رکھ ایناں نوں


تفصیلی فیصلہ الیکشن کے بعد جاری کیا جائے گا ​

 

[Saboo]

سنا ہے اب مریم صاحبہ بذات خود سپریم کورٹ میں جا کر آرٹیکل 69 کی تشریح کریں گی
?

ہاں میں نے ڈڈو چارجر کو کہتے سنا ہے کہ مریم صاحبہ عدالت جاکر زبیرعمر کی
ایک ویڈیو چلایں گی جس میں وہ 69 کو عملی جامہ پہناتے ( یا اتارتے ) دکھائی
دے رہے ہیں….?

 

[Citizen X]

سپریم کورٹ کا مختصر ترین فیصلہ : سارے غدار اپنی بکواس بند کرو، او شیر جواناں قاسم سوری خوش کیتا ای چِھک کے رکھ ایناں نوں


تفصیلی فیصلہ الیکشن کے بعد جاری کیا جائے گا ​

I hope you are right shayad aqal aur ghairat dono jaag jaye. But the SC and every CJP suffers from the cult of self. They believe they are gods and they can do whatever they please.

They dismissed two cases in the past week citing article 69. Saying court cannot interfere and then all of a sudden take a suo moto on the very same when the corrupt mafia is in trouble?

Actions speak louder than words and their actions have always been suspect.

 

[Saboo]

کونسے آرٹیکل کی خلاف ورزی ہوئی ھے؟

Hahaha…Obviously the one article the constitution has?…..Aur kia??

 

[Meme]

کونسے آرٹیکل کی خلاف ورزی ہوئی ھے؟

آرٹیکل 95 کی، ویسے تم چاہو تو آرٹیکل 6 بھی لگا سکتے ہیں۔ ?

“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.”

 

[Meme]

کونسے آرٹیکل کی خلاف ورزی ہوئی ھے؟

منے میاں ویسے آرٹیکل 69 (اسپیکر کو حاصل تحفظ) کے دائرہ اختیار کی تشریح کے لئے متعدد فیصلے موجود ہیں جو عدالت میں آج پیش بھی کئے گئے ہیں حتمی فیصلہ بہرحال عدالت میں ہو جائے گا۔​

 

[cestmoi ✅️]

نہیں… 69 ? کا ذکر اور اسکا نفاذ بہت پہلے سے چین اور ہندستانی تہذیبوں میں موجود تھا
شائد کتابی صورت میں اسکا ذکر ہندوؤں کے کوک شاستر میں صدیوں پہلے سے موجود ہے.
ہمارے علاقوں میں بھی اسکا رواج ہے جسے ہم اردو میں الٹا پلٹا کہتے ہیں.

یہ 'الٹا پلٹا' میں نے پہلی دفعہ سنا ہے ? صابو تم بہت چیز ہو

 

[Dr Adam]

I hope you are right shayad aqal aur ghairat dono jaag jaye. But the SC and every CJP suffers from the cult of self. They believe they are gods and they can do whatever they please.

They dismissed two cases in the past week citing article 69. Saying court cannot interfere and then all of a sudden take a suo moto on the very same when the corrupt mafia is in trouble?

Actions speak louder than words and their actions have always been suspect.

Keep this in mind thus far only the jokers are presenting their case thru their clown lawyers.
May be today or tomorrow defendant attorneys will start arguing their case. All of the them will be making arguments for upholding article 69 with a coordinated approach. look at the attorneys line up of this side: Khalid Javed, Babar Awan, Naeem Bukhari, Ali Zafar, Azhar Siddique, Faisal Chouhdry and may be someone else too.
Asal khail inkay arguments say shuru ho gaa.
Three Justices for and may be 2 Justices against, that will be the outcome, my hunch.

 

[باس از باس]

.

Article 69 should not be discussed during holy month of Ramadan hence preceding is adjourned till 4th of Shawal.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Yes thats what Ive been saying since yesterday. Article is very clear and cut. SC ko bund mein awein dard utha aur suo moto ley liya when just a day or so back they threw out a petition exactly on the basis of this article.

This is clear interference of the court in the political process.

SC did the right thing now. Previously, the Registrar rejected the plea, which is not his job. He is only there to ascertain that the required documents and information is there for the case. Now whether the plea is maintainable or not, is a question of law and has to be decided by the Judge, not the registrar.

Secondly, there is a right known as Audi Altrum Partum, meaning that every party has a right to be heard. So, they are hearing the opposition (even if they are wrong), as per the procedure.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Keep this in mind thus far only the jokers are presenting their case thru their clown lawyers.
May be today or tomorrow defendant attorneys will start arguing their case. All of the them will be making arguments for upholding article 69 with a coordinated approach. look at the attorneys line up of this side: Khalid Javed, Babar Awan, Naeem Bukhari, Ali Zafar, Azhar Siddique, Faisal Chouhdry and may be someone else too.
Asal khail inkay arguments say shuru ho gaa.
Three Justices for and may be 2 Justices against, that will be the outcome, my hunch.

The whole case will revolve around the maintainability of the Petition.

What I fear is that the SC really cannot call in to question the proceedings of the parliament (which is a superior forum), but, on the other hand, the constitution has also vested two more powers in SC, i.e its interpretative role of the constitution and its consultative role for legislation.

Now consider the case of COAS's extension, last time. SC did not hold the ruling on the extension, but, rather gave a directory verdict.

Also, in this case, what seems to be a possible weak point is not the ruling of the speaker, but, the order of dissolution of assemblies.

 

[Dr Adam]

The whole case will revolve around the maintainability of the Petition.

What I fear is that the SC really cannot call in to question the proceedings of the parliament (which is a superior forum), but, on the other hand, the constitution has also vested two more powers in SC, i.e its interpretative role of the constitution and its consultative role for legislation.

Now consider the case of COAS's extension, last time. SC did not hold the ruling on the extension, but, rather gave a directory verdict.

Also, in this case, what seems to be a possible weak point is not the ruling of the speaker, but, the order of dissolution of assemblies.

I understand your point, and no offense..... with heavy heart tend to agree with it.
So in other words, for our Musalman Supreme Court:

پکّے ہوئے قورمے اچ سور دا گوشت حرام اے پر شورا حلال اے
لہذا تلاں والے روغنی نان پھڑو تے دبّی جاؤ . پلیٹ دے کسے پاسے شورا بچنے نہ پائے

 

[Sohail Shuja]

I understand your point, and no offense..... with heavy heart tend to agree with it.
So in other words, for our Musalman Supreme Court:

پکّے ہوئے قورمے اچ سور دا گوشت حرام اے پر شورا حلال اے
لہذا تلاں والے روغنی نان پھڑو تے دبّی جاؤ . پلیٹ دے کسے پاسے شورا بچنے نہ پائے

But, even in that case, if the order of dissolution of assemblies is declared void ab initio, IK still has a trump card up his sleeve i.e. resignations on all 155 seats.

Lagay raho munna bhai phir

The house of parliament cannot conduct its proceedings, if by any chance, less than 228 seats are filled. That is truly constitutional.

Tey phir na dhola hosi tey na rola hosi.

However, I personally think that the SC should not play its part in lingering on this political crisis. It will hit the economy very hard. New elections appear to be a fair game.