Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)
… Anyhow:
Two judges can have entirely two different opinions on same subject and can give two different verdicts. Fukhruddin G Ibrahim is retired. He is not Chief Justice of Pakistan. He is not even Judge. Chief Justice of Pakistan is Dogar and if any judgment needs to come, it has to come from Chief Justice Dogar and current judges of Supreme Court.
Another thing is that, no judge was sacked on or after 3rd November. All arguments on this basis are misinformation and political ranting. Judges got removed because they did not take oath under PCO and thus declined to perform duty as Judges under PCO (current constitution at that time). So there could be no argument that judges were removed using article A or article B of constitution, because judges themselves declined to do their job and thus lost their job. Reason is that, at the time these judges got removed, constitution was in abeyance and current constitution was PCO. On the other hand, constitution talks about sacking or removal of judges, but not about judges not taking oath and thus losing their jobs because they declined to perform duty under existing constitution (PCO).
So, important fact one should remember is that, all judges who were removed on or after 3rd Nov, they declined to take new oath when emergency was declared and their removal was not due to any reason but due to they themselves declining to take oath. Thus, if case would go to Supreme Court, it could not be about sacking of judges but it could be about judges not taking oath and thus removing themselves as they declined to perform duty as Judges. One can understand the case of judges this way:
Can judge work as judge if constitution is put in abeyance and ‘Provisional Constitutional Order’ is introduced, judges asked to take oath under this PCO, and judges decline to take oath on this PCO?
Obviously they could not work as judges because new ‘provisional constitution order’ is introduced and they did not took oath under that existing constitution, so they have to leave job because it is requirement of judges to work and give judgments under particular constitution that exists in the country while they are working. They could not work under constitution that is in abeyance and new law in the country exists for time being under PCO.
If question would arises that Judges decline to take oath under PCO because they considered that taking oath under PCO was illegal, than argument would be that if they considered PCO as illegal then their post as judges were illegal in the first place, as all of them were holding the post of judges on PCO that came in 1999. So, removal of Judges who were holding their post illegally could not be illegal. 