Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)

[Sa1eem]

Re: Judges restoration, YES/NO? Clarification (Threads Merged)

@ehtasab

Why don’t you tell us the relationship between corruption and taking oath as you keep parroting the word “corrupt” everytime you talk about Ch Iftikhar refusing to take oath on 2nd PCO?

Is this your above statement true or lie? If it is true, can you please quote any of my post where I linked taking (or not taking) oath on 2nd PCO with corruption?

Why is he not being prosecuted in a court now for the crimes he committed? Please no BS about “reconciliation” or “forgiving nature” etc.?

Well, I hope that you are replying after reading my post and not B-Sing for sake of B-Sing:). Have your not read in my above post that if judge gives wrong verdict, still that verdict get carried out? So, judge cannot get persecuted or punished on wrong judgments. They can only get persecuted or punished for other charges not related to judgments, like nepotism, corruption, misuse of power, misconduct, etc. Here is quote of what I wrote (in your reply regarding FGI understanding law).

So what if FGI is retired, does it mean he does not understand law anymore?

Of course he understands laws. But then all lawyers understand laws, still they contest in court on their own understanding, and have to abide by the judgments of Judges (even if judgements are wrong).

So, obviously Iftikhar cannot be persecuted for wrong judgments. As for punishment on corruption and other charges, if Iftikhar was to be dealt fairly, that could have happened after giving Iftikhar chance to defend against such allegations. President did try to give Iftikhar chance to defend himself as President sent reference to SJC to get investigated. So, punishment of Iftikhar was supposed to happen after investigation by SJC. Unfortunately, corrupt judges of Supreme Court stopped SJC to carry out investigation and since result of investigation did not come out, punishment did not happen.

Who is responsible for calling a Judicial council, is it President’s responsibility or PM’s? or is it upto SC bench to decide whether to invoke a SJC or not?

President is responsible to call Supreme Judicial Council to investigation any judge if there are allegations on that judge (coming to the notice of President from any source). Later, President uses the result of that investigation to decide what to do with that particular judge.

With regard to Iftikhar, allegations came from various sources (also got published in some news papers) and due to such allegations, Prime Minister referred the allegations to President, who asked SJC to investigate.

Though SJC can start investigation without reference from President, they cannot do anything of that investigation, as they have no authority on other judges. Only President can act or sack a judge. Thus, it is not duty of SC judges to ask SJC to investigate other judges, and in reality it was ridiculous of Supreme Court Judges to interfere or stop Supreme Judicial Council from investigation, but they did and since Iftikhar made the case not judicial but public case, government did not pursued the case (it was political decision by government not to question the verdict by Surpeme Court and let Iftikhar get away with corruption).

Who was on the SJC bench? How did they “stop” SJC?

SJC bench consists of CJ plus 2 other most senior Supreme Court Judges plus two most senior Chief Justices of High Courts. If reference is against CJ or any other judge that should be part of SJC, then next senior judge replaces that judge.

SJC is answerable to President only and is above any Court (as it investigates other judges and can even recommend removal of judges to President).

Read article 208 of constitution and it will tell you that it is President who is responsible (for Supreme Court and Federal Shariet Court) in making rules of appointment of Judges or any other court employees, including terms and conditions of their employment. [Governors, who are representative of President, are responsible for High Courts].

Similarly, you can read Article 209 (clause 6 B) of the constitution that would tell you that it is only President who can remove Judges.

http://www.na.gov.pk/constitution.pdf

Who paid these judges? Is there a proof or just fabrication? Who pressurised them?

Now what answer I can give to you? You are asking question same way some Pakistanis ask when they are told that SHO that lives in 50 million rupee house is corrupt.

For the last bolded part, I thought you said govt didn’t “replace” the judges rather the judges refused to be on SC bench by not taking oath, so which is it?

Yea, I did. Judges were not replaced but they lost their job because they refused to work. They could have only worked if they had taken oath under PCO, because after emergency, constitution was put in abeyance and it became working requirement of Judges to take oath on PCO so that they can give judgments and verdicts according to PCO.

yes sir! After announcing emergency, removing “corrupt judges” everything was fine and dandy in Pakistan… by the way the judges who freed “terrorists” took oath on 2nd PCO and are sitting in SC

Yaar, what can one do when some people use good laugh for nothing. Their good laugh only shows that they have no substance and are hiding behind good laughs

In short, my answer to your question is: Yes. After PCO, most things that needed danda were put in place and became fine.