Arslan
Moderator
[PLAYWIRE=1002956]3766954[/PLAYWIRE]
- Featured Thumbs
- http://www.zemtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/power6.jpg
Last edited:
Power Play - 26th July 2015 - Kia Nazriya Zarorat Phir Se Zinda Hogaya Hai??
- Thread starter Arslan
- Start date
[PLAYWIRE=1002956]3766954[/PLAYWIRE]
Doctrine of necessity is being brought in as a conspiracy to dispute the findings of the Judicial Commission (JC) and to exhonerate Imran Khan.
The JC gave its findings within the parameters of the Terms of Reference (TORs).
The inquiry was neither of criminal nor of civil but of inquisitorial nature ie, based on the questions asked and answers given on all the sides and in the case of serious odds on the evidence produced,
Answers or replies given by the parties, in the of case of the discerning dissatisfaction, were to be adjudicated based on evidence.
The PTI failed to prove their accusations by failing to produce any evidence.
The PTI and the PPP had the joint pretext that the evidence was in the bags.
They might possibly have failed to understand the nature of inquiry and wanted to make it adversersorial with an expected opportunity that something somewhere will come out in their favour. The minimum goal could be lingering on the matter and use it as a source for adverse and poisonous propaganda against the opponents and the state institutions.
The relevant rules do not allow adversarial proceedings for a so formed commission and the Constitution entrusts this task to be performed by Election Tribunals.
It is dangerously wrong to say the doctrine of necessity was applied as it was beyond the jurisdiction, the imposed limitations of TORs and the nature of inquiry that the JC could have applied it.
As usual, the anchor person is trying to become more than clever in an attempt to be a jack of all but master of none.
The other serious aspect is the confused understanding between the "illegal snatching of polls" and the "designed snatching of polls" in Urdu "dhandli" and "Munazzm dhandli".
The TORs facing the JC were not dhandli but munazzam dhandli.
Scattered incidents of "dhandli" can not be ruled out but it does not constitute a "Munazzm dhandli" which according to the Khan's allegations, the beneficiary (Nawaz Shrif) snatched away the mandate of all the 21 political parties through the nook and corner of the country.
As per the findings of the JC, this allegation could not be proved due to the lack of evidence.
Not to speak of producing the supportive evidence before the JC, Mr. Khan who was so much vocal in the allegations dared not to appear before the JC as a witness.
In these circumstance, it is highly unjust to shed misgivings on the findings of the JC.
The JC gave its findings within the parameters of the Terms of Reference (TORs).
The inquiry was neither of criminal nor of civil but of inquisitorial nature ie, based on the questions asked and answers given on all the sides and in the case of serious odds on the evidence produced,
Answers or replies given by the parties, in the of case of the discerning dissatisfaction, were to be adjudicated based on evidence.
The PTI failed to prove their accusations by failing to produce any evidence.
The PTI and the PPP had the joint pretext that the evidence was in the bags.
They might possibly have failed to understand the nature of inquiry and wanted to make it adversersorial with an expected opportunity that something somewhere will come out in their favour. The minimum goal could be lingering on the matter and use it as a source for adverse and poisonous propaganda against the opponents and the state institutions.
The relevant rules do not allow adversarial proceedings for a so formed commission and the Constitution entrusts this task to be performed by Election Tribunals.
It is dangerously wrong to say the doctrine of necessity was applied as it was beyond the jurisdiction, the imposed limitations of TORs and the nature of inquiry that the JC could have applied it.
As usual, the anchor person is trying to become more than clever in an attempt to be a jack of all but master of none.
The other serious aspect is the confused understanding between the "illegal snatching of polls" and the "designed snatching of polls" in Urdu "dhandli" and "Munazzm dhandli".
The TORs facing the JC were not dhandli but munazzam dhandli.
Scattered incidents of "dhandli" can not be ruled out but it does not constitute a "Munazzm dhandli" which according to the Khan's allegations, the beneficiary (Nawaz Shrif) snatched away the mandate of all the 21 political parties through the nook and corner of the country.
As per the findings of the JC, this allegation could not be proved due to the lack of evidence.
Not to speak of producing the supportive evidence before the JC, Mr. Khan who was so much vocal in the allegations dared not to appear before the JC as a witness.
In these circumstance, it is highly unjust to shed misgivings on the findings of the JC.
Last edited:
Seems understanding of English language is different for Pakistani judges, say one thing and do another thing,and the ignorant public has to swallow the hot potato even though THE HOT POTATO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SWALLOWED BY THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRREGULARITIES WHICH ARE OF CRIMINAL NATURE.
IF THIS IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF EX JUSTICE WAJID OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS THEN THE PUBLIC SHOULD CARRY ON DRINKING WHITE MILK.MILK WITH 100 grams of piss and because it is white then it is halal.
Jokers throwing dirt in the eyes of the people.GIVE SOME CREDIT TO JUSTICE TARIQ HE TRIED TO TAKE THE DIRT OUT OF THE EYES MIANS COMMISSION HAS THROWN.
IF THIS IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF EX JUSTICE WAJID OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS THEN THE PUBLIC SHOULD CARRY ON DRINKING WHITE MILK.MILK WITH 100 grams of piss and because it is white then it is halal.
Jokers throwing dirt in the eyes of the people.GIVE SOME CREDIT TO JUSTICE TARIQ HE TRIED TO TAKE THE DIRT OUT OF THE EYES MIANS COMMISSION HAS THROWN.
Last edited:
