Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
if case will proceed daily ..then ..it will end soon...
Re: his last match…play it well…sir
Alhamdulilallah.
Isn’t it ironic that under the so called dictatorship, people are saying the real power is with SC.
God Bless President Musharaf and his govt. for restoring freedom of judiciary in Pakistan.
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
Flame, whats the procedure for getting the passes issued?
Type up an application addressed to Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan simply stating that u wish to attend the hearing of the case. I don't know the official name of the case so I can only guess its Qazi Hussain Ahmed Vs Federation of Pakistan.
Passes r issued to people in different categories..like journalists, general public, students etc.
So make sure u mention ur profession and the category u r in, ur cell no. for contact and ur NIC no.
takes 2-3 days for them to issue the pass.
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
I see, thanks man! You got any plans to go yet?
Re: his last match…play it well…sir
It’s all good to see that minorities have acheived the most powerful and influntial postions in Pakistan - all thanks to President and Commander in Chief Musharraf.
Re: his last match…play it well…sir
He has been a judge for 40 years…long before most of us were born. He was a judge on SHC since 1994 and was elevated to the SC in 2000 based on seniority. So, what does Mushrraf has to do with him being on the SC or his achievements?
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
He has been a judge for 40 years...long before most of us were born. He was a judge on SHC since 1994 and was elevated to the SC in 2000 based on seniority. So, what does Mushrraf has to do with him being on the SC or his achievements?
In 2000. Oh yes that's right - when he took an oath on Musharraf's PCO like the present CJ.
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
^^ now CJ is on oath of 1973 Constitution ..as all of judges..plz..keep this thing in mind....
and freedom of judiacary..LOL..we have seen this freedom on the eve of 9 march ..2007 ..:)
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
^^ now CJ is on oath of 1973 Constitution ..as all of judges..plz..keep this thing in mind....
No - it is on the LFO-amended (17th amendment) constitution actually.
Plus the likes of CJ Iftikhar, Rana Bhagwandas and countless other judges owe their present positions to swearing an oath on the PCO in the first place. If if was not for them swearing an oath on the PCO in the first place they would still be sitting on the provincial High Courts from where they came from. Taking an oath on the LFO-amended (17th amendment) constitution years later does not change that. :)
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
No - it is on the LFO-amended (17th amendment) constitution actually.
Plus the likes of CJ Iftikhar, Rana Bhagwandas and countless other judges owe their present positions to swearing an oath on the PCO in the first place. If if was not for them swearing an oath on the PCO in the first place they would still be sitting on the provincial High Courts from where they came from. Taking an oath on the LFO-amended (17th amendment) constitution years later does not change that. :)
Correct indeed.
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
Reza mian, you are forgetting what happened in 2000 with judges, please remind us of that.
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
In 2000. Oh yes that's right - when he took an oath on Musharraf's PCO like the present CJ.
In case someone missed it. :)
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi's dual-office petition (merged)
^ yes, there is a lot happened in 2000, judges were told to take the oath... not just 'took an oath'.
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
In 2000. Oh yes that's right - when he took an oath on Musharraf's PCO like the present CJ.
In your previous post you were praising Justice Das, and saying how Mushrraf helped him to get where he is. Now, you're questing his legitimacy as a judge who took an oath under PCO (like CJ).
And, not only that, since you're questioning him for taking oath under PCO, therefore you're questioning premise of PCO itself which was issued by Mushrraf. That means you agree that Mushrraf's actions were illegal, so is his hold on power. Now it make sense... :)
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
In your previous post you were praising Justice Das, and saying how Mushrraf helped him to get where he is. Now, you're questing his legitimacy as a judge who took an oath under PCO (like CJ). And, not only that, since you're questioning him for taking oath under PCO, therefore you're questioning premise of PCO itself which was issued by Mushrraf. That means you agree that Mushrraf's actions were illegal, so is his hold on power. Now it make sense... :)
Nope, I never questioned the legitimacy of the PCO, nor the leaglity of Musharraf's rule. It's all legal and quite legitimate, and validated over and over again - by parliament and the Supreme Court. Rana at least has been consistent with his views since he swore an oath on the PCO, and does not go on about "upholding the 1973 constitution" and all that jazz. Not like some very hypocritcal senior judges we know, and their supporters. :)
Re: 9 Member bench hearing Qazi’s dual-office petition (merged)
First time u take the name of Rana Bhagwandaas. trying to preempt the judgment dear? 
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
In your previous post you were praising Justice Das, and saying how Mushrraf helped him to get where he is. Now, you're questing his legitimacy as a judge who took an oath under PCO (like CJ). And, not only that, since you're questioning him for taking oath under PCO, therefore you're questioning premise of PCO itself which was issued by Mushrraf. That means you agree that Mushrraf's actions were illegal, so is his hold on power. Now it make sense... :)
Well, to them whether Musharraf is legal or not doesn't matter whether constitution approved it or not, doesn't matter what happened to judges. He only means to say that all the judges were "favored" by Musharraf otherwise they were rotting their lives in some hell hole and how their lives are so dependent on Musharraf and by the other movement of Musharraf's pen or with career of Musharraf ending will mean end for the jutices too.
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
Nope, I never questioned the legitimacy of the PCO, nor the leaglity of Musharraf's rule. It's all legal and quite legitimate, and validated over and over again - by parliament and the Supreme Court. Rana at least has been consistent with his views since he swore an oath on the PCO, and does not go on about "upholding the 1973 constitution" and all that jazz. Not like some very hypocritcal senior judges we know, and their supporters. :)
Well, there is only one constitution and thats the one from 1973 and the system of govt is under that constitution. PCO was a decree issued by Mushrraf, and later on it was made part of law to give it legal cover.
Anyway, coming back to PCO, either you're far it or against it. If you think PCO is part of laws-a valid law approved (not passed) by the parliament than you can't question the judges of the SC who took oath under PCO. Or if you're against than say so b/c that mean you disagree with the whole thing, and therefore you're questioning all the actions taken by the Mushrraf regime. So, which one is it?
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
Well, there is only one constitution and thats the one from 1973 and the system of govt is under that constitution. *PCO was a decree issued by Mushrraf, and later on it was made part of law to give it legal cover. *
Yes, Musharraf''s rule has legal cover. Thanks for conceding that. :)
Re: his last match...play it well...sir
Yes, Musharraf''s rule has legal cover. Thanks for conceding that. :)
Not necessarily. If you can question the legitimacy of the SC working under PCO than PCO itself can be challenged b/c it an retroactive law...ie it was passed to give legal cover to prior illegal action.