Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
The CJ isn't corrupt or biased. No proof of that yet to quote you. That is what you say about all the rest yet when it comes to the CJ no need for proof eh?
See that, that's the problem with you. Your biased comments here shows how you think far from the realities. subhanullah kya kehna. Read the decision of SC on this issue than say something. CJ should have ordered arrest of his son what he has done, instead he called Rehman Malik to give him government suite in Quetta with supply of cars on his disposal, that is only CJ of Pakistan can do this none in the world.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
If I say that your rant against Zardari and PPP leadership is staged drama, you would jump up and down. Read follows and let me know if any CJ of the world does this kind of nonsense bs and consider himself and his judgements as credible.
**A strange case of conspiracies and conspiracy theories
Dr Iftikhar secured an overall C grade in intermediate examination, which was not sufficient to grant him admission in Bolan Medical College, in 1996. It was alleged that the then chief minister of Balochistan was approached to nominate Dr Iftikhar for admission against leftover foreign vacant seats/special seats.
According to the reference, nine years later, Dr Iftikhar was appointed as a medical officer at Institute of Public Health, Quetta in 2005. A few days after his initial appointment, the chief minister of Balochistan passed an order, which called for Dr Iftikhar’s promotion as section officer in health department.
The orders were allegedly given to the then chief secretary of Balochistan who referred the case to Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD), as the authority to approval postings and transfers of secretariat staff.
Ironically, the reference also stated that in the August of 2005, the Ministry of Interior addressed a letter to the chief secretary of Balochistan regarding Dr Iftikhar’s services being required in FIA.
In September of 2005, the Ministry of Interior issued a notification to appoint Dr Iftikhar as Assistant Director in the FIA. In the April of 2006, Dr Iftikhar was promoted to the position of Deputy Director in FIA.
After being promoted in FIA, it is alleged that a campaign was launched to recruit Dr Iftikhar in the police service.
The reference also mentions that in the May of 2006, the Ministry of Interior issued a letter to Commandment National Police Academy, Islamabad to attach Dr Iftikhar for field training along with under training ASPs.
A few days later the Ministry of Interior issued another letter which stated that after the completion of Dr Iftikhar’s training at National Police Academy, the services of the trainee be made available to Punjab Police.
In the mean time the Prime Minister Secretariat was allegedly approached to permanently induct Dr Iftikhar as an employee of the Police Service of Pakistan. However, his permanent recruitment required an amendment in the Police Service of Pakistan Rules 1985, which could only be introduced through president’s approval. The authorities claim that the chief justice exerted immense pressure on the Prime Minister Secretariat to ensure his son’s permanent induction in the police force.
**
**http://epaper.dawn.com/~epaper/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=14_06_2012_001_003
Riaz hurls fourth question at CJ
The tycoon claimed that Arsalan Ikftikhar had been given a suite at the Balochistan House the other night, adding that Interior Minister Rehman Malik had provided him the rooms ondirectives of Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain.**
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
**His point is that SC in Pakistan charged PM because he did not follow court order of writing letter and PM's argument was that President has immunity (which president has). Hence SC's order was unconstitutional and court can not punish PM because he did not follow unconstitutional order.
He is not saying anywhere that PM has immunity.
**
No need to get ticked off because it coming from "Indian" judge. No one is asking them how to run Pakistan. It was just another point of view that I posted. How about we talk about merits and demerits of what he said instead of "oh bloody Indian"....
I get your point but the fact is no citizen of any country incl. those in power can defy the orders of the apex court
Had Gilani written to the Swiss courts as per SC's order, they would have written back saying they couldn't do anything in this matter or reopen cases against Zardari because as President he enjoyed complete immunity under both national and international law. Their reply would have put the ball back in judiciary's court and there is nothing they could have done about it. Gilani would have survived
But Gilani being stupid and dheet/hatdharam chose instead to challenge the court's order by refusing to write to Swiss courts
If anything the presidential immunity law should be criticised because it is discriminatory
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Again none of this is proof. These are allegations. I wanna see proof. Evidence. Letters. E-mails. Tangible Proof. Like there is no Tangible Proof that Zardari ever got a BA.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Katju said that Pakistan Supreme Court, particularly its Chief Justice, has been showing utter lack of restraint which is expected of the superior Courts. "The Constitution establishes a delicate balance of power, and each of the 3 organs of the State, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary must respect each other, and not encroach into each other's domain, otherwise the system cannot function,"
If the balance tips to one side, the other side has to kick in. Our parliamentarians, PM and president had gone berserk. Look at their laundry list. Someone had to kick in. The ruling govt has been a wholesome package of corruption and deceit, and if that isnt encroaching into the judiciary's domain, then what is?
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Regardless of what are the technicalities of the judgement are, one this is certain: Zardari has accumulated millions of dollars in Swiss Banks, obviously through illegal means. If this was not true, the government would not be so hesitant on writing the letter.
Now the people who are supporting such a president: LANAT HO TUM PEY.
Why single out Zardari? LANAT is on all corrupts and supporters of corrupts. In this respect, Zardari and his supporters are no exception, we have many (including supporters of Nawaz).
Corruption not only destroys the country but kills million. Killing from corruption is not direct and obvious, but it is due to corruption Pakistan has bad roads, bad health, bad economical situation, bad law and order, bad transport, bad social services, bad environmental state, bad water and sewerage system, and so on. All mentioned bring pains, miseries, and kill people.
Corruption also helps notorious criminals who harm or exploit vulnerable people in society, killing many of them, and get away with their crimes.
Thus, effects of corruptions bring misery and pain to almost all Pakistanis except those who benefit from corruption (corrupt government and semi-government employees, and corrupt politicians in power).
Indirectly, corruption brings pains, misery and kills 100s of time more people in Pakistan than combined killing due to any other reasons.
It is obvious that even after death, whoever did corruption, they and their family members (including all who benefitted from their corruption and corrupt money knowingly, willingly, and proudly) would go to hell, as their sins effected whole population and obviously whole population would never forgive them on judgment day. Thus, to give justice to whole Population, they would be thrown in hell fire by Allah.
Thus, LANAT is on all who do corruption and supports politician who do corruption, that is, those who made money or wealth illegally and legally using their power and position while they were entrusted with power and position by nation (legally because even benefitting legally with help of power and position, like enacting laws to benefit themselves or using law enacted by past corrupts to benefit themselves is in theory seems legal, but actually it is illegal or legal corruption)
Those who support these Lanati corrupts are also Lanati if they support these corrupts knowingly that they are corrupt and benefit from them too, as it is due to these Lanati supporters these corrupts do what they do.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Again none of this is proof. These are allegations. I wanna see proof. Evidence. Letters. E-mails. Tangible Proof. Like there is no Tangible Proof that Zardari ever got a BA.
If this is no proof for you, then what you have evidence, letters, e-mails, tangible proof against PPP government?
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Why single out Zardari? LANAT is on all corrupts and supporters of corrupts. In this respect, Zardari and his supporters are no exception, we have many (including supporters of Nawaz).
His only fault is this that he belongs to Sindh that's why he has to be singled out.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
We should look at what is being said before looking at 'who said that'. From what this guy is complaining, we need to look at why CJ asked PM to write letter to Swiss, was it based on 'suo motu' or was it because someone filed a case for that, or if it was result/outcome of another related case (i.e. NRO). If it was based solely on suo motu action of CJ then definitely it was case judicial activism, unconstitutional, conspiracy against "Sindhi President" etc. but if it is a resultant of outcome of other/related case then I don't see why it is judicial activism or unconstitutional.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Having hard time comprehending simple English? The SC was ordering the PM to violate the law:
"Section 248(2) of the Pakistan Constitution states: No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or Governor in any Court during his term of office."
In other words, the SC was asking PM to prosecute the president in violation of article 248(2).
Agreed!!! If the real reason to dismiss Pak PM is that he did not prosecute President then SC of Pakistan is asking PM to violate Constitution.
But, I'm sure not acting against President might not be the real reason, but if it is then dismissal of PM is not justified under current Constitution of Pakistan
**Judicial Coup in Pakistan
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
**
When U.S. President Barack Obama sharply challenged a recent Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union address, prompting a soto voce rejoinder from Justice Samuel Alito, nobody was concerned that the contretemps would spark a blood feud between the judiciary and the executive. The notion that judges could or would work to undermine a sitting U.S. president is fundamentally alien to America’s constitutional system and political culture. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan.
**Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the country’s erstwhile hero, is the leading culprit in an unfolding constitutional drama. It was Mr. Chaudhry’s dismissal by then-President Pervez Musharraf in 2007 that triggered street protests by lawyers and judges under the twin banners of democracy and judicial independence. This effort eventually led to Mr. Musharraf’s resignation in 2008. Yet it is now Mr. Chaudhry himself who is violating those principles, having evidently embarked on a campaign to undermine and perhaps even oust President Asif Ali Zardari.
Any involvement in politics by a sitting judge, not to mention a chief justice, is utterly inconsistent with an independent judiciary’s proper role. What is even worse, Chief Justice Chaudhry has been using the court to advance his anti-Zardari campaign. Two recent court actions are emblematic of this effort.
The first is a decision by the Supreme Court, announced and effective last December, to overturn the “National Reconciliation Ordinance.” The NRO, which was decreed in October 2007, granted amnesty to more than 8,000 members from all political parties who had been accused of corruption in the media and some of whom had pending indictments.
While some of these people are probably corrupt, many are not and, in any case, politically inspired prosecutions have long been a bane of Pakistan’s democracy. The decree is similar to actions taken by many other fledgling democracies, such as post-apartheid South Africa, to promote national reconciliation. It was negotiated with the assistance of the United States and was a key element in Pakistan’s transition from a military dictatorship to democracy.
Chief Justice Chaudhry’s decision to overturn the NRO, opening the door to prosecute President Zardari and all members of his cabinet, was bad enough. But the way he did it was even worse. Much to the dismay of many of the brave lawyers who took to the streets to defend the court’s integrity last year, Mr. Chaudhry’s anti-NRO opinion also blessed a highly troubling article of Pakistan’s Constitution—Article 62. This Article, written in 1985, declared that members of parliament are disqualified from serving if they are not of “good character,” if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” do not practice “teachings and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam,” and if they are not “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate.” For non-Muslims, the Article requires that they have “a good moral reputation.”
Putting aside the fact that Article 62 was promulgated by Pakistan’s then ruling military dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, relying on religion-based standards as “Islamic injunctions” or inherently subjective criteria as “good moral reputation” thrusts the Pakistani Supreme Court into an essentially religious domain, not unlike Iranian Sharia-based courts. This behavior is profoundly ill-suited for any secular court. While Article 62 was not formally repealed, it was discredited and in effect, a dead letter. The fact that the petitioner in the NRO case sought only to challenge the decree based on the nondiscrimination clause of the Pakistani Constitution and did not mention Article 62 makes the court’s invocation of it even more repugnant. Meanwhile, the decision’s lengthy recitations of religious literature and poetry, rather than reliance on legal precedent, further pulls the judiciary from its proper constitutional moorings.
The second anti-Zardari effort occurred just a few days ago, when the court blocked a slate of the president’s judicial appointments. The court’s three-Justice panel justified the move by alleging the president failed to “consult” with Mr. Chaudhry. This constitutional excuse has never been used before.
It is well-known in Islamabad that Mr. Zardari’s real sin was political, as he dared to appoint people unacceptable to the chief justice. Since consultation is not approval, Mr. Chaudhry’s position appears to be legally untenable. Yet Mr. Zardari, faced with demonstrations and media attacks, let Mr. Chaudhry choose a Supreme Court justice.
There is no doubt that the chief justice is more popular these days than the president, who has been weakened by the split in the political coalition which brought down Mr. Musharraf. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is now a leading opponent of the regime. There is a strong sense among the Pakistani elites that Justice Chaudhry has become Mr. Sharif’s key ally.
The fact that Mr. Chaudhry was a victim of an improper effort by former President Musharraf to replace him with a more pliant judge makes his current posture all the more deplorable. His conduct has led some of his erstwhile allies to criticize him and speak of the danger to democracy posted by judicial meddling in politics. The stakes are stark indeed. If Mr. Chaudhry succeeds in ousting Mr. Zardari, Pakistan’s fledgling democracy would be undermined and the judiciary’s own legitimacy would be irrevocably damaged. Rule by unaccountable judges is no better than rule by the generals.**
–
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington, D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. This piece was published in The Wall Street Journal
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
I don’t know about the 7999 other test cases, whether those test cases were against PML-N, MQM, ANP or some other trivial cases (with no national level impact). What remains to be seen is when and “if” PML-N forms a government in next elections and if this CJ is still there then what he does at that point of time.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
I don't know about the 7999 other test cases, whether those test cases were against PML-N, MQM, ANP or some other trivial cases (with no national level impact). What remains to be seen is when and "if" PML-N forms a government in next elections and if this CJ is still there then what he does at that point of time.
Many severe cases against mqm and PML(N) from murder to extortion to bhatta to opening foreign accounts to buying multi millions pounds/dollars properties to receiving moneys from ISI against PPP etc. But he only sees Zardari case. He even dispose of his son's corruption case with in no time instead of sending him to jail for taking money on his behalf.
Re: Retired Indian Supreme court judge deprecates Pak SC verdict on Gilani
Many severe cases against mqm and PML(N) from murder to extortion to bhatta to opening foreign accounts to buying multi millions pounds/dollars properties to receiving moneys from ISI against PPP etc. But he only sees Zardari case. He even dispose of his son's corruption case with in no time instead of sending him to jail for taking money on his behalf.
yes, that is right, when cases against MQM/PML-N are also open because of NRO strike-down they should be prosecuted as well, I agree.