AGGAR NAA aHel nahi kaarna tu bahane kiyoo dhood rahi hai
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday has raised questions on what will be the appropriate forum for deciding the disqualification of a parliamentarian after the passage of 18th amendment, as it heard a case on the prime ministers disqualification.
Acting chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, while heading the three judge bench of the apex court, sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan on deciding four questions relating to the disqualification of a parliamentarian.
The bench questioned that what will be the appropriate forum to disqualify a parliamentarian? If courts are the correct forum, then which court will be competent to initiate the trail, what will be the procedure regarding the disqualification of a parliamentarian and what kind of evidences will be required to disqualify a parliamentarian.
During the hearing, Justice Khawaja also asked whether Article 10-A of the constitution will be applicable and who will have the locus standi to challenge the qualification before the competent court. He said that it is the will of people that their representative should be Sadiq and Ameen
Justice Khawaja added that they had no concern whether the premier or the interior minister are disqualified in this case or not, adding that they will give a ruling in accordance with the Constitution.
For this part, AGP Salman Aslam Butt contended before the bench that the court has already decided to form a larger bench to decide issues pertaining to the disqualification of parliamentarians, therefore, this case should be referred to the same bench as well.
On the other hand, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani, who is a member of the bench, observed that sitting parliamentarians had qualified for the assembly by passing the test of Sadiq and Ameen in view of Article 62 of the Constitution.
He added that after the insertion of 18th amendment, Retuning Officers can not disqualify a candidate until and unless he is convicted by a court of law. Earlier, ROs had disqualified the candidates over minor issues, therefore, the legislature inserted a clause that no one can be disqualified unless they are declared to be disqualified by a court of law.
Justice Osmani asked the petitioner to explain which clause of the Constitution says a liar can be disqualified from the parliament. Justice Osmani also made it clear that there is no remedy against the Speaker National Assemblys ruling regarding the qualification of any MNA.
Justice Khawaja further observed that if the court takes notice on media statements of parliamentarians, then the whole parliament will be disqualified.
PTIs counsel dissatisfied over courts proceedings
Irfan Qadir, the counsel for PTI leader Ishaq Ahmad Khakwani, expressed his dissatisfaction over the courts proceedings in PM disqualification case. He stated that 65 days have passed since the case had been filed, but no meaningful hearing has conducted.
Further, the counsel has requested the bench to fix their matter related to the recusal of Justice Khawaja first. He also raised question over the impartiality of registrar office in this matter. He requested Justice Khawaja, who is performing duty as acting CJ, to fix appeal against registrar offices order, wherein their plea regarding his recusal was returned by raising objections.
Justice Khawaja asked Irfan Qadir that another petitioner Insaf Lawyers Forum senior vice president Gohar Sindhu says that he should hear his case but he is requesting for recusal.
On the previous hearing, Justice Khawaja observed that they will deliver written order in this case in the evening. He also stated that the next hearing of the case will be heard in Quetta registry on Monday.
Justice Khawaja also said that everyone should give special attention to Balochistan, adding that he also urged CJP Nasir ul Mulk to form Supreme Courts benches in Quetta registry to give speedy justice to the people of province. He lamented that our history is silent over the disintegration of country (fall of Dhaka).
On the other hand, the bench could not pass order in the evening and the case has gain listed by tomorrow (Thursday)
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday has raised questions on what will be the appropriate forum for deciding the disqualification of a parliamentarian after the passage of 18th amendment, as it heard a case on the prime ministers disqualification.
Acting chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, while heading the three judge bench of the apex court, sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan on deciding four questions relating to the disqualification of a parliamentarian.
The bench questioned that what will be the appropriate forum to disqualify a parliamentarian? If courts are the correct forum, then which court will be competent to initiate the trail, what will be the procedure regarding the disqualification of a parliamentarian and what kind of evidences will be required to disqualify a parliamentarian.
During the hearing, Justice Khawaja also asked whether Article 10-A of the constitution will be applicable and who will have the locus standi to challenge the qualification before the competent court. He said that it is the will of people that their representative should be Sadiq and Ameen
Justice Khawaja added that they had no concern whether the premier or the interior minister are disqualified in this case or not, adding that they will give a ruling in accordance with the Constitution.
For this part, AGP Salman Aslam Butt contended before the bench that the court has already decided to form a larger bench to decide issues pertaining to the disqualification of parliamentarians, therefore, this case should be referred to the same bench as well.
On the other hand, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani, who is a member of the bench, observed that sitting parliamentarians had qualified for the assembly by passing the test of Sadiq and Ameen in view of Article 62 of the Constitution.
He added that after the insertion of 18th amendment, Retuning Officers can not disqualify a candidate until and unless he is convicted by a court of law. Earlier, ROs had disqualified the candidates over minor issues, therefore, the legislature inserted a clause that no one can be disqualified unless they are declared to be disqualified by a court of law.
Justice Osmani asked the petitioner to explain which clause of the Constitution says a liar can be disqualified from the parliament. Justice Osmani also made it clear that there is no remedy against the Speaker National Assemblys ruling regarding the qualification of any MNA.
Justice Khawaja further observed that if the court takes notice on media statements of parliamentarians, then the whole parliament will be disqualified.
PTIs counsel dissatisfied over courts proceedings
Irfan Qadir, the counsel for PTI leader Ishaq Ahmad Khakwani, expressed his dissatisfaction over the courts proceedings in PM disqualification case. He stated that 65 days have passed since the case had been filed, but no meaningful hearing has conducted.
Further, the counsel has requested the bench to fix their matter related to the recusal of Justice Khawaja first. He also raised question over the impartiality of registrar office in this matter. He requested Justice Khawaja, who is performing duty as acting CJ, to fix appeal against registrar offices order, wherein their plea regarding his recusal was returned by raising objections.
Justice Khawaja asked Irfan Qadir that another petitioner Insaf Lawyers Forum senior vice president Gohar Sindhu says that he should hear his case but he is requesting for recusal.
On the previous hearing, Justice Khawaja observed that they will deliver written order in this case in the evening. He also stated that the next hearing of the case will be heard in Quetta registry on Monday.
Justice Khawaja also said that everyone should give special attention to Balochistan, adding that he also urged CJP Nasir ul Mulk to form Supreme Courts benches in Quetta registry to give speedy justice to the people of province. He lamented that our history is silent over the disintegration of country (fall of Dhaka).
On the other hand, the bench could not pass order in the evening and the case has gain listed by tomorrow (Thursday)
Last edited by a moderator:
