Parliament has been saying that it is supreme. Chief Justice is saying that consitution is supreme. After coming into being, parliaments have been products of the constitution and I believe that Chief Justice’s observation makes perfect sense. If the parliament is supreme, it can easily make a law declaring its tenure indefinite. But since such a legislation will be against the fundamental tenets of the contitution, the parliament cannot make such a law. Parliament also cannot abolish the supreme court as the constitution puts its interpretation responsibilty on the top court. Thus, supreme court would be in a legal position to strike down any legislation that is against the basic principles of the constitution.
Parliament can amend constitution. If lawmakers want to make a law that conflicts with the constitution, they can always change the constitution but that requires something like a consensus rather than simple majority.
There should be no concept of 'supremacy'. Every institution has its own role and they should remain within that role.
Parliament is a law making body -- should remain so. The idea that members of a particular party cannot vote against party in parliament is stupid in my opinion.
Government is executive -- it should not involve itself in lawmaking to make its own life easier. Its job is to run the affairs of the country according to existing laws.
Judiciary -- should restrict itself to 'judge' whether some event, person or contract contradicts current laws.
Parliament, taken as a whole, having power to make new laws and even change constitution can 'feel' supreme but theoretically, 'taken as a whole' it represents people of the country and having that power makes sense. Using parliament as a rubber stamp, as we saw in case of Raja Rental being appointed as our PM, is abuse of such powers.
CJ is talking like ex-dictator, mardood Zia-ul-Haq. He said, aaain koi aasmani sahifa nahin hay, iss ko toilet paper ki tarah istemaal kya ja sakta hay. And these very corrupt judges took oath under him and dictator who followed him. CJ is giving example of British parliament forgetting that judges don't take oath under pco there, flushing the constitution down to gutter.
CJ is talking like ex-dictator, mardood Zia-ul-Haq. He said, aaain koi aasmani sahifa nahin hay, iss ko toilet paper ki tarah istemaal kya ja sakta hay. And these very corrupt judges took oath under him and dictator who followed him. CJ is giving example of British parliament forgetting that judges don't take oath under pco there, flushing the constitution down to gutter.
Zinda hai Zia zinda hai...................people would more than welcome Zia rather than these scum remnants of Bhutto who have driven the country in gutter.
all the governmental organs, legislative, executive and judicary are defined by Constitution and hence that makes constitution superior than any other institution.
What we have seen in the last four years is that Parliament just tries to protect their individuals at any cost. Parliament has become a joke, bills are being introduced to safeguard their own personal interests, there is no check and balance system. they continiously show inconsistency on all matters that deal with national interests. but then they are quick to say, oh Parliament is supreme, like the other day, RM says, Parliament should be the sole decision maker.
having said that, I have been disappointed by Judiciary as well, unfortunetly what I see that SC is just tangled in solving cases like swiss courts/memogate/dual office etc, whereas a common man is hopeless that they too will ever get justice.
Being a layman and a below average guy, I don't know why do we have parliament and why do we have these MNA, MPA and Senators when the non-elected or elected leader of the particular party can make all the decisions and rest of the sheep-herd have no option but to follow it???
You know what I dare the PPP to change the constitution so they can let non-Pakistanis into government. The CJ is right in the matter. The constitution is supreme.
...I have been disappointed by Judiciary as well, unfortunetly what I see that SC is just tangled in solving cases like swiss courts/memogate/dual office etc, whereas a common man is hopeless that they too will ever get justice.
That's why the government is amending the constitution to make justice only for the common man, not for the elite class. They are working to root out your disappointment :D
It has become a slogan that every organ of the state should remain in its limits to avoid clash between state institutions. It is often used as an oblique reference to the military and — more recently — to the judiciary exclusively. This slogan needs to be demystified.
Constitution is a framework wherein all of its institutions work. Every organ has been mapped a domain to stay inside. But this cannot be applied on the Supreme Court because the Constitution itself has mandated the top court to be the highest authority on its interpretation. Factually speaking, SC personifies Constitution because Constitution itself cannot rule on different things against different backgrounds and there has to be body that could actualize the spirit of the Constitution with taking into accounts different operating factors. It's not that just crossing one's limit will be seen as a breach of law. Not working properly in one's own domain is also a breach of law which has to be tackled by a court of law.
Take the statute as a circle wherein all state organs work in their own domains. If you also pen the SC in a domain, how will it oversee the rest of the organs and make sure that no one is trangressing its parameters? The circle of the statute itself is the framework of the body that oversees the entire mechanism of state functioning that conforms to the constitution. And that body is the top court of your country.
Legally and under a democracy yes the Judiciary has that right. Meaning Zardari can't make a law that says he will be President for the next 30 years in the constitution. The Judiciary has every right to strike that down. The Judiciary is the last line of defense of the Constitution against a corrupt government.
Legally and under a democracy yes the Judiciary has that right. Meaning Zardari can't make a law that says he will be President for the next 30 years in the constitution. The Judiciary has every right to strike that down. The Judiciary is the last line of defense of the Constitution against a corrupt government.
I was giving this example to a friend of mine today. This is enough to clarify that constitution, no the parliament, is supreme.
Othewise they will extend their tenure indefinitely since they have the majority and no one would be in a position to stop them.
Its unconstitutional and the Judiciary strikes it down.
LOL... amending constitution is not unconstitutional :D Parliament has the power to do so. They cannot make a law conflicting with existing constitution, but they can always change the constitution.
I think CJ has credibility problem b/c he also gave Mushy power to amend constitution as he wished. So, Parliament elected by the people can’t change anything conflicting with basic structure of the Constitution, but military dictator can do whatever he like? Am I the only who finds flows in this argument?
LOL... amending constitution is not unconstitutional :D Parliament has the power to do so. They cannot make a law conflicting with existing constitution, but they can always change the constitution.
Sure it is. If against the letter and spirit of the constitution. Like the Amendment on Ahmadies is in violation of what the first 3 clauses of the constitution. They can not make any law which is against basic values of democracy, human rights and good governance. They can't amend the constitution to make murder or rape legal as an example.
Sure it is. If against the letter and spirit of the constitution. Like the Amendment on Ahmadies is in violation of what the first 3 clauses of the constitution......
Theoretically, the parliament can amend those 3 clauses of the constitution. :P
