The Supreme Court has banned wedding meals. It has done this in the public interest. Our S.C has always up held the interest of public, for example, for the public interest it invented the doctrine of necessity and legitimized military all coups. These wedding meal laws were previously also in vogue particularly I remember in early days of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The Punjab Government introduced a similar rule when in a party attended by Nawaz Sharif the single dish served contained more than 15 type of meals. When the newspapers criticised the reply from government spokesman was that law bans serving of one dish and it was a one dish. How much would nation benefit out of this S.C banning meals, the self reply is the photograph published in daily DAWN on 20.11.04 showing tents erected on main road in Faisalabad for a marriage party. There were several items in one big dish called “thall”. Supreme Court’s this order will remain as in the past just a show piece order. People know our S.C only issues orders and do not take note of violations of its orders by big. Higher courts of civilized countries always have powers to take notice at their own of matters which could affect the general masses. Pakistani S.C also has the same power given by the people. It can issue order banning wedding meals on which there are many genuine counter comments that these meals are traditions and that this rule cannot be implemented at all except on poor street people. Some very rightly say serving tea cold drinks and snacks cost almost equal to meals as cost of these items after S.C ban have increased. Military requirements should be more important particularly in a country like Pakistan surrounded by an arch enemy. We should in no case decrease our military budget under foreign or local pressures. However creating a new G.H.Q at a huge expense when nation is already under debit is against public interest. The old G.H.Q is only being vacated to allot the vacated land in future to some influentials under different labels. The poverty is increasing but on huge expense we are importing bullet proof cars for VIPs. Soon the rule will be made allowing these bullet proof passengers taking allotted cars with them on finish of their tenure on book value as are bureaucrats and judges presently are allowed to take home their staff cars on retirement on book value. Two three years before retirement on large expense almost every item of the staff car is replaced with new one so when it goes home on retirement it practically is new one. If our S.C is so sincere and honest towards public then why for the public interest it does not take note of such things like bullet proof cars, new G.H.Q etc. All these monies can be transferred for opening of new schools at village level. No government however will ever do this. Our S.C can only take note on wedding meals in which real sufferers through hands of police would be poor people but cannot dare taking note of wasteful public expenses like bullet proof cars. If wedding meal is against Islamic teachings as S.C has remarked, then rulers keeping their security through Bullet proof cars at poor public expense is also against Islam. Recently PM of Scandanavian country was murdered while coming on foot after seeing a film. After his death a meeting of all member countries was called to discuss security of future prime ministers. After long deliberations it was decided the State cannot provide protection. If such prime minister or rulers feel fear then they should not come in the filed of politics/holding public office.