PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Reza_Pahlavi · November 26, 2007, 9:06pm

Free from the bullying of ex-CJ Iftikhar, the judges are speaking their minds about how he and some of his supporting justices precipitated a constitutional crisis in Pakistan.

The court ruled that the Constitution was based on the principle of trichotomy of powers in which all the three organs of the state – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – were required to perform their functions and exercise their powers within their specified sphere.

“Unfortunately, some members of the superior judiciary by way of judicial activism transgressed the constitutional limits and ignored the well-entrenched principle of judicial restraint. Thousands of applications involving individual grievances were being processed as suo motu cases ostensibly in the exercise of power under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which provision is resorted to the enforcement of fundamental rights involving questions of law of general public importance,” it added.

The order said: “Instances of transgression of judicial authority at large-scale may be found in the cases of determination of prices of fruits, vegetables and other edibles, suspension and transfers of government officials, frequent directions to enact particular laws, stoppage of various development projects, such as New Murree City, Islamabad Chalets, Lahore Canal Road and many more.

“They rendered the state machinery, particularly legislative and executive branches of the government paralysed and nugatory and made ineffective the institution of the Supreme Judicial Council set up under the Constitution for the accountability of the members of the superior judiciary.

“The sum total of the circumstances led to a situation where the running of the government in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution became impossible for which the Constitution provided no remedy or satisfactory solution.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/11/24/top1.htm

Captain1 · November 26, 2007, 9:10pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

What are these judges going to recommend future control of such "bullying"? what is solution? Were previous judges going out of constitution for those suo motu actions?

Aalsi · November 26, 2007, 9:19pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

So, it appears that the judges thought they were above the law, and not accountable for their actions.

Who were they to disregard the constitution.

daleel · November 26, 2007, 9:35pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Funny how the peons are trying their utmost to please their master. Another message from the president house signed and issued by the peon Dogar.

Aalsi · November 26, 2007, 9:37pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

LOL. You do make some funny comments. I like your sense of humour. :D

daleel · November 26, 2007, 9:40pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Reality hurts when personality cult worshipping is so deep that illusion takes over.

Aalsi · November 26, 2007, 9:45pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Surely, you can’t say that about 95% of the population - isn’t that the percentage of Pakistani population that support the great leader President Musharaf, or am I doing a dis-service by quoting such a low figure.

Captain1 · November 26, 2007, 10:03pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

You need to ask Musharraf first, what the heck Constitution is and what it means.

Captain1 · November 26, 2007, 10:04pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

so you finally learnt 95 is greater than 90… good.

Reza_Pahlavi · November 27, 2007, 2:29pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Aalsi, according to the constitution of Pakistan the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is the only body that can investigate any allegations against the superior judges. But by the July 20 judgement that restored the ex-CJ, the judges decided that allegations Iftikhar would not be referred to the SJC for investigation at all. So yes, the judges did disregard the constitution, and effectively ruled that they could not be held accountable for allegations made against them. So if the only legal body that can investigate judges is ignored, then Musharraf is spot on when he said that the constitution provided no other remedy to hold judges accountable, and that extra-constitutional action had to be taken.

It’s time Pakistan amended it’s constitution to add two important amendments:-

All judicial appointments be subject to Senate approval (like US), so judges can be questioned about their political beliefs, judicial stances, suitability for job etc.
Allow parliament to also impeach judges as well (like President can be) if serious allegations are made against them & remove them by 2/3 majority if found guilty.

Aalsi · November 27, 2007, 2:38pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Reza_Pahlavi:

Aalsi, according to the constitution of Pakistan the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is the only body that can investigate any allegations against the superior judges. But by the July 20 judgement that restored the ex-CJ, the judges decided that allegations Iftikhar would not be referred to the SJC for investigation at all. So yes, the judges did disregard the constitution, and effectively ruled that they could not be held accountable for allegations made against them. So if the only legal body that can investigate judges is ignored, then Musharraf is spot on when he said that the constitution provided no other remedy to hold judges accountable, and that extra-constitutional action had to be taken.

Thank you for this. It explains alot. Something people keep forgetting. Maybe they are blinded by rage?

Reza_Pahlavi · November 28, 2007, 10:04am

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Indeed, so true.

Captain1 · November 28, 2007, 4:38pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Which "judges" are we talking about here? What makes a "SJC"?

[quote]
Musharraf is spot on when he said that the constitution provided no other remedy to hold judges accountable, and that extra-constitutional action had to be taken.
[/quote]

WRONG! Making Judges accountable to other institution requires constitution changes, not fire them and introduce PCO... so no extra-constitutional actions were required.

smooth_guy · November 28, 2007, 5:19pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Eversince Dawn group hit by their DAWN NEWS channel banned, the group is bowing like a true slave.

We will now see these kinds of articles here and there from the oppertunists.

Establishment and its haraamkhor elites (from all walks of life) didn't like the quick and clear justice system that was functioning for the benefits of ordinary man. The ordinary man 'aam janta' is getting crushed by establishment and the elites of this country just like their fathers (Brits) and they can't see them getting any justice.

These kinds of writers can only produce these kinds of articles with lame allegations or generalization, since they didn't do anything good for the nation, they can atleast criticize the one that are making difference for the first time. Same with the judges under PCO (some are there for their jobs, as they have to run the families too), some belong to the same catagory or are relatives of establishment that they can't stand change.

The biggest evidence is Mush's speech on Nov 3. He clearly stated how big of a challenge SC had become for the establishment and administration. He didn't mention 'awaam' getting hurt by SC, because he knows people like what SC has done in last three years. And even Afgan, Wasi Zafr (long arm) and Durrani cannot deny it. People like SC much much more than these fagots.

Rebel_X · November 28, 2007, 5:20pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

dont ask dont tell :nono:

Reza_Pahlavi · November 29, 2007, 8:57pm

Re: PCO Judges 2007 v PCO Judges 2000

Didn't stop the SC judges kissing upto these people in 2000 and 2007, when the judges swore an oath on the PCO's.