# Parliament cannot make law conflicting with Constitution: CJP



## Kabira

*Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Mian Saqib Nisar has stressed that parliament cannot make a law which comes in conflict with the Constitution, saying the top court holds the right to review any legislation.*

On Monday, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi strongly criticised the superior judiciary for labeling elected representatives as “thieves and looters” and also asked for a debate in the House on whether the government has the right to take legislative decisions.

The uncharacteristically fiery speech came shortly after the PML-N’s parliamentary party, presided over by Abbasi and including national and provincial assembly members and senators of the PML-N met to discuss whether or not to discuss the judges’ conduct on the assembly floor.

*PM slams judiciary for labeling MPs as ‘thieves and looters’*

“It was conveyed yesterday that the court cannot intervene in the process of legislation,” _Express News_ quoted Justice Nisar as saying during the proceedings of the media commission case.

I have repeatedly said that parliament is a supreme institution but there’s something even more supreme, and that is the Constitution.

“In one of the cases, we didn’t give any remarks but raised some questions; we only asked if a certain person was eligible [to hold a public office].”

There’re questions that are raised during court proceedings, Justice Nisar said and asked how the court’s remarks could amount to an insult to parliamentarians.

“I don’t want to give [an impression that I’m furnishing] an explanation,” he said. “We need to be savvy of the administration’s measures and basic rights of people.”
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1640011/1-parliament-cannot-devise-law-conflicting-constitution-cjp/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kabira

Agreed with CJ here, parliament cannot pass any legislation. This slave Abbasi PM should forgot about saving Nawaz. Its about time Pakistani politicians paid attention to public issues instead of personalties.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?



Not if they want to pass law which suite particular individual.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?


This assembly was not elected with mandate to make the constitutions as was 1973s. The interpretation of the laws is the jurisdiction of the SC. Any law that conflicts with constitutions and fundamental rights of the people or it is based on some malicious intent, can be stricken down by the SC.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
8


----------



## Bashido

This CJP is prime example of self glory and ch iftikhar syndrome.



war&peace said:


> This assembly was not elected with mandate to make the constitutions as was 1973s. The interpretation of the laws is the jurisdiction of the SC. Any law that conflicts with constitutions and fundamental rights of the people or it is based some malicious intent, can be stricken down by the SC.


Interpretation of the law is the jurisdiction of the SC??? How.


----------



## Zibago

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?


2/3rd majority needed to ammend constitution which is not easy as it will require ppp and pti to be on their side in senate



Bashido said:


> This CJP is prime example of self glory and ch iftikhar syndrome.



*-Removed insults - webby.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiyan0321

hmmmmm

Article 8 of the constitution of pakistan. 

Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void. 

any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law,insofar as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this chapter, shall, to the of such inconsistency, be void. 

The state shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights so conferred and any law made in contravention of this clause, to the extent of such contravention, be void. 
the following case laws can help shed light. 

It was stated in muhammad nawaz sharif vs president of pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473

Fundamental rights guaranteed in any constitution are not capable of precise or permanent definition. These rights are to be construed in consonance with the changed conditions of the society and must be viewed and interpreted with a vision to the future. 

In the case law mahmood khan achakzai vs federation of pakistan PLD 1997 SC 426

Words "any law" as used in present article will apply to all laws made by the parliament, be it general law or a law to amend the constitution. 

qualifications for member of majlis e shoora

62.1.f

he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law. 

PLD 2009 SC 107

Performance of an individual or any group of individuals or any class is not the touchstone for determining the validity of any legislative action. The court has to decide the controversy on legal and constitutional grounds. 

Article 184.3 of the constitution of Pakistan pertains to the original jurisdiction of the supreme court and its object is to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights referred to therein. This provision is an edifice of democratic way of life and manifestation of responsibility cast on supreme court as a protector and guardian of the constitution. the jurisdiction conferred by its fairly wide and the court can made an order of of the nature envisaged by article 199, in a case where a question of public importance, with reference to enforcement of any fundamental right conferred by chapter 1 of part 2 of the constitution is involved. Article 184.3 is remedial in character and conditioned by three prerequisites. 

there is a question of public importance
Such a question involves the enforcement of fundamental rights
The fundamental rights sought to be enforced is conferred by chapter 1 part 2 of the constitution...
PLD 1988 SC 416
PLD 1993 SC 473


The supreme court being the creature of the constitution is mpowered to examine the legislative competence to declare a statute or a legal document ultra vires the constitution, or the action of the state authorities void if its in conflict to the provision of the constitution, in exercise of its power of judicial review and has to enforce the constitution as a paramount law but the scopre of judicial review of the superior courts being confined to the enforcement of constitution as supreme law for the purpose of determining the question relating to the legality of administrative action, the court will make harminous interpretation of the provision of the constituion to avoid ambiguity. 

PLD 2010 SC 61

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kabira

Bashido said:


> This CJP is prime example of self glory and ch iftikhar syndrome.



Problem is Pakistan isn't UK. All these parliamentarians will be busy passing laws to save their own skin. Majority of Pakistanis neither care or will know much what happened. One can only laugh when they give example of what happen in UK parliament.

_"I invite Chief Justice of Pakistan to attend undergraduate LAW Classes on #ParliamentarySovereignty in UK or I can teach him for FREE-that Parliament as the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other institutions,including executive or judicial bodies" Abbasi _

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Kabira said:


> parliament is a supreme institution but there’s something even more supreme, and that is the Constitution.



What the Honorable Judge conveniently forgot to mention was that under certain circumstances made "necessary", something can be even _more _supreme than the Constitution. 

A Constitution can only work as well as the people and institutions willing to follow it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zibago

Kabira said:


> Agreed with CJ here, parliament cannot pass any legislation. This slave Abbasi PM should forgot about saving Nawaz. Its about time Pakistani politicians paid attention to public issues instead of personalties.


Phir sey side change yaar insaan ban Hamid Mir na ban 

On topic be it US or UK laws conflicting with constitution are challenged in court Trumps travel van despite support of Republicans and the president was challenged and had to be severely ammended on orders of the court thats how democracies function
Sharifs and their paid suar kay bachay are used to authoritarian regimes of middle east they dont know how real democracies function

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

Zibago said:


> Phir sey side change yaar insaan ban Hamid Mir na ban
> 
> On topic be it US or UK laws conflicting with constitution are challenged in court Trumps travel van despite support of Republicans and the president was challenged and had to be severely ammended on orders of the court thats how democracies function
> Sharifs and their paid suar kay bachay are used to authoritarian regimes of middle east they dont know how real democracies function



I'm on Pakistan side not in to peer faqiri like you guys.



Syed.Ali.Haider said:


> What the Honorable Judge conveniently forgot to mention was that under certain circumstances made "necessary", something can be even _more _supreme than the Constitution.
> 
> A Constitution can only work as well as the people and institutions willing to follow it.



Days of martial laws are over, army will be crippled even more in coming years. They have looted enough in the name of occupied Kashmir and afghani terrorism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

Kabira said:


> I'm on Pakistan side not in to peer faqiri like you guys.


Bhai to rehn dey 
@PakSword



Kabira said:


> I'm on Pakistan side not in to peer faqiri like you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> Days of martial laws are over, army will be crippled even more in coming years. They have looted enough in the name of occupied Kashmir and afghani terrorism.


No more sharifs and altafs and nro, s for the corrupt lot things will improve for us no more compromises on key issues 

Oh and on Kashmir well without Sharif our policy will be more anti India trust me on that darlin

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiyan0321

article 68 says no discussion shall take place in majlis e shoora with respect to the conduct of any judge of the supreme court or of a high court in the discharge of his duties, 

PLD 1998 SC 823

Article 68 of the constitution provides that no discussion shall take place in parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the supreme court or high court in the discharge of his duties. 


article 69. The validity of any proceedings in parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.

Courts cannot scrutinize the internal proceedings of the parliament. 

there is also the preamble which states that 

wherein principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by islam shall be fully observed. 


Parliament has power to amend laws however there is precedence of judicial review of passed laws and then there is the islamic limitations which cannot allow a corrupt person to become state or party head. 

this requires alot of research.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MBT 3000

agree with CJ


----------



## saiyan0321

this is where it gets really funny

Two articles stand for amendment of the constitution. article 238 and 239. Article 239 is procedure so no issue there. The fight comes in 238.

Article 238 is simply this

Subject to this part, the constitution may be amended by the act of majlis e shoora.

the object is that
introducing provisions for the amendment of the constitution is to bring it in line with the changing conditions and new demands and needs of times which could not have been foreseen by the constitutional makers at the time when the constitution was promulgated.

you see in ghulam mustafa khan vs pakistan PLD LAH 49

article 238 clearly signify that there is no limitation whatever on the power of parliament to amend any of the provisions of the constitution....... The clear and inescapable conclusion that can be legitimately drawn from the words "subject to this part" is that there are no restraints on the parliament, for amending the constitution other than what is contained in article 239.
Parliament thus is vested with the power of constituent assembly to make or umake consitution by amending it through the machinery provided in the constitution.


Now the issue comes is

PLD 2015 SC 401

Constitution of pakistan did not state that the parliament enjoyed supremacy over the constitution itself. in fact quite the contrary was established in that the supremacy of the constitution over all state organs had to be recognized. Parliament was the subordinate instrumentality of the people, created by them to subserve and implement their will. parliament was not supreme as its power to amend the constitution was constrained by limitations which were clear from the reading of the constitution as a whole. such limitations were not only political but subject to judicial review and, as a consequence, the supreme court had the power to strike down a constitutional amendment which transgressed such limits, principles.


Clause 3 of article 239 states no amendment to the constitution can be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever... muhammad bachal memon vs government of sindh and 2 others PLD 1987 kar 296

Clause 6 has laid down in no uncertain terms that there are no fellers whatever on the power of parliament to amend any of the provisions of the constitution. It may, however, be kept in mind that any amendment that has to be effected should be within the broad contours of the objectives and basic features of the policy provided in the preamble and in various articles of the constitution.

PLD 2015 SC 401 states

term any court used in the said article did not include the supreme court. Scheme of the constitution was such that it mentioned the supreme court by name when the jurisdiction of the supreme court was to be ousted, but when the constitution did not mention the supreme court, its jurisdiction was not ousted. Article 239.5 thus did not oust the jurisdiction of the supreme court to call in question an amendment made to the constitution by the parliament. Even if an attempt was made to curtail the jurisdiction of the supreme court, it would not be sustainable as the original constitution of pakistan 1973 did not envisage it. Besides article 239.5 has no place in the original constitution of pakistan 1973 and it was subsequently added by a military dictator ( president order no 20 of 1985 second amendment order) to sustain himself in the usurped office of the president....






WOW... very interesting times... ]

@M. Sarmad your opinion would be golden here

@Kaptaan @Joe Shearer would also like to hear what you guys have to say about this legislative superiority battle that has engulfed pakistan. We have interpretations and articles and case laws.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Crystal-Clear

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?


what if parliament pass the law to kill any one with curly hairs ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

Crystal-Clear said:


> what if parliament pass the law to kill any one with curly hairs ?


I would support that


----------



## Crystal-Clear

Zibago said:


> I would support that


daadey will resist .


----------



## Zibago

Crystal-Clear said:


> daadey will resist .


Wo kon?


----------



## PakSword

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?



If PMLN includes the amendment in its manifesto and its candidates win 2/3rd seats (God forbid) in 2018 elections, they will be able to amend the constitution. However, even then, they will require two third majority in both the houses (National Assembly and Senate).

I am afraid that they have already started preparations to include it in party's manifesto, and they are also doing massive horse trading in senate elections.



Kabira said:


> Problem is Pakistan isn't UK. All these parliamentarians will be busy passing laws to save their own skin. Majority of Pakistanis neither care or will know much what happened. One can only laugh when they give example of what happen in UK parliament.
> 
> _"I invite Chief Justice of Pakistan to attend undergraduate LAW Classes on #ParliamentarySovereignty in UK or I can teach him for FREE-that Parliament as the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other institutions,including executive or judicial bodies" Abbasi _



Even in UK, a PM can't murder someone and then remain on his seat by merely getting vote of confidence..



Zibago said:


> Phir sey side change yaar insaan ban Hamid Mir na ban
> 
> On topic be it US or UK laws conflicting with constitution are challenged in court Trumps travel van despite support of Republicans and the president was challenged and had to be severely ammended on orders of the court thats how democracies function
> Sharifs and their paid suar kay bachay are used to authoritarian regimes of middle east they dont know how real democracies function



Aaj bhai ko crypto main kamaal faida hua hai!

Kyun bhai @Kabira y



Zibago said:


> Bhai to rehn dey
> @PakSword



Ohh I didn't read this statement.. I take my above comment about crypto back..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

PakSword said:


> If PMLN includes the amendment in its manifesto and its candidates win 2/3rd seats (God forbid) in 2018 elections, they will be able to amend the constitution. However, even then, they will require two third majority in both the houses (National Assembly and Senate).
> 
> I am afraid that they have already started preparations to include it in party's manifesto, and they are also doing massive horse trading in senate elections.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in UK, a PM can't murder someone and then remain on his seat by merely getting vote of confidence..
> 
> 
> 
> Aaj bhai ko crypto main kamaal faida hua hai!
> 
> Kyun bhai @Kabira y
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I didn't read this statement.. I take my above comment about crypto back..


Save Ghenday ka ghenda bemar hey shayad

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

war&peace said:


> This assembly was not elected with mandate to make the constitutions as was 1973s. The interpretation of the laws is the jurisdiction of the SC. Any law that conflicts with constitutions and fundamental rights of the people or it is based on some malicious intent, can be stricken down by the SC.



This assembly was not elected with mandate? What does that even mean? Just because you don't like the party? I am sorry, you guys are not making any sense at all. If a party has 2/3 third majority or is able to get it with co-operation with other parties, there is no reason why they cannot change the constitution. Who invented the law that the 1973 constitution is unchangeable? 

As for fundamental right, define "fundamental rights" of the people. I can already think of several amendments that contravene fundamental rights but Pakistanis seem to be happy with it. This statement and those supporting it just seem to be trying to make political statements.



Crystal-Clear said:


> what if parliament pass the law to kill any one with curly hairs ?



Why are you being ridiculous?


----------



## PakSword

Zibago said:


> Save Ghenday ka ghenda bemar hey shayad


Aur bhi 2-chaar miskeen thay.. pata nahi kahan hain aaj kal?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

PakSword said:


> If PMLN includes the amendment in its manifesto and its candidates win 2/3rd seats (God forbid) in 2018 elections, they will be able to amend the constitution. However, even then, they will require two third majority in both the houses (National Assembly and Senate).
> 
> I am afraid that they have already started preparations to include it in party's manifesto, and they are also doing massive horse trading in senate elections.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in UK, a PM can't murder someone and then remain on his seat by merely getting vote of confidence..
> 
> 
> 
> Aaj bhai ko crypto main kamaal faida hua hai!
> 
> Kyun bhai @Kabira y
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I didn't read this statement.. I take my above comment about crypto back..



I still don't see the point you guys are making. If Zia Ul Haq, an unelected military ruler can add several amendments, why can't a democratically elected party with 2/3 majority change the constitution?


----------



## VCheng

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I still don't see the point you guys are making. If Zia Ul Haq, an unelected military ruler can add several amendments, why can't a democratically elected party with 2/3 majority change the constitution?



Any amendments made without due process, such as those by military dictators, are _illegal_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakSword

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I still don't see the point you guys are making. If Zia Ul Haq, an unelected military ruler can add several amendments, why can't a democratically elected party with 2/3 majority change the constitution?



Which amendments were introduced by Zia all alone? There was a parliament in his regime as well.. Remember Junejo?


----------



## Pakistani E

Syed.Ali.Haider said:


> Any amendments made without due process, such as those by military dictators, are _illegal_.



Who is going to divest with amendments introduced by Zia ul Haq? 



PakSword said:


> Which amendments were introduced by Zia all alone? There was a parliament in his regime as well.. Remember Junejo?



Parliament and Zia ul haq? Just like the Ayub Khan's presidential elections?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Who is going to divest with amendments introduced by Zia ul Haq?



No one. Hence the Pakistani Constitution will remain a grotesquely misshapen tool of convenience for the powerful, to the nation's everlasting loss.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakSword

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Parliament and Zia ul haq? Just like the Ayub Khan's presidential elections?



I mean it was a cartoon parliament, in which NS was also a provincial finance minister.. but there was one.. Every dictator had to bring cartoons into the parliament I suppose, to carryout their desired tasks..


----------



## Zibago

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I still don't see the point you guys are making. If Zia Ul Haq, an unelected military ruler can add several amendments, why can't a democratically elected party with 2/3 majority change the constitution?


Pmln punjab modi nawaz league doesnot have that majority they dont have sindh and kpk and they cant control balochistan puniab isnt the only province you need to change constitution

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mentee

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I still don't see the point you guys are making. If Zia Ul Haq, an unelected military ruler can add several amendments, why can't a democratically elected party with 2/3 majority change the constitution?


What if the parliament declares navaz to be the Ameer Mominin and pm For life? Would you be ok with that? After all he's democratically elected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zibago

Mentee said:


> What if the parliament declares navaz to be the Ameer Mominin and pm For life? Would you be ok with that? After all he's democratically elected.


Fun fact it almost happened

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mentee

Zibago said:


> Fun fact it almost happened


97 is the year?


----------



## Zibago

Mentee said:


> 97 is the year?


More or less


----------



## Mentee

Zibago said:


> More or less


Funfact #2 this time around he'd be yearning for the status of his majesty


----------



## PakSword

Mentee said:


> What if the parliament declares navaz to be the Ameer Mominin and pm For life? Would you be ok with that? After all he's democratically elected.



Parliament can.. but for that, it will have to introduce massive changes in the constitution.. maybe a new constitution.. but to do that, PMLN needs to go into elections with this manifesto.. and win the elections with massive lead in both the houses...


----------



## Kabira

PakSword said:


> Parliament can.. but for that, it will have to introduce massive changes in the constitution.. maybe a new constitution.. but to do that, PMLN needs to go into elections with this manifesto.. and win the elections with massive lead in both the houses...



Who the f read manifesto in Pakistan. Anyone in gov can buy that amount of lotas and allies to pass any law.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakSword

Kabira said:


> Who the f read manifesto in Pakistan. Anyone in gov can buy that amount of lotas and allies to pass any law.



Of course no one reads manifesto, and then compare it with the achievements of the government before next elections.. That's why we are in this pathetic condition as a nation..


----------



## Super Falcon

There is limiatations of power if tommorow assembly passes law to killing is free in coubtry bunch of 340 idiots decides it than nation has right to throw that law and them assembly is not above the constituon

If law is ammended to facilitate the personal agdnda it is not good


----------



## Crystal-Clear

Zibago said:


> Wo kon?








makrani people


----------



## Kabira

Zibago said:


> Pmln punjab modi nawaz league doesnot have that majority they dont have sindh and kpk and they cant control balochistan puniab isnt the only province you need to change constitution



Mirpuri tell me one thing, why AJK keep voting for Nawaj Sarif?


----------



## Crystal-Clear

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Why are you being ridiculous?


one could expect anything from jahil league .
after we all know , they want to change the law just to save corrupt sharif family.


----------



## Mentee

PakSword said:


> Parliament can.. but for that, it will have to introduce massive changes in the constitution.. maybe a new constitution.. but to do that, PMLN needs to go into elections with this manifesto.. and win the elections with massive lead in both the houses...


Here's a rule of jurisprudence. In a democracy no Parliament can pass laws which end up changing the basics of its constitution, from which the parliament derives its authority as a legislative organ of the state. Constitution is like a contract. You may alter some clauses to facilitate the execution of it with the consent of contacting parties . But cannot turn down the deal which it carries.


You don't like it fine, abolish it and bring a new thing, extra constitutional though but then you also have to stick up to that whatever thing. That's the demand of any system of governance

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakSword

کچھ چیدہ چیدہ نکات نواز لیگ کے٢٠١٣ منیفسٹو سے پیش خدمت ہیں. آپ بھی پڑھیں اور لطف اندوز ہوں ​


> Sound macro-economic policies to reduce deficits in the budget and the balance of payments, curb inflationary pressures and reduce country’s dependence on foreign loans and assistance.







> Democratic governance which requires supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law in order to reduce corruption, tax evasion, wasteful expenditure, misuse of power, and meets the aspirations of the people.







> Higher investment in the energy sector as outlined in chapter 2 of this manifesto.







> Attracting foreign investment in the agriculture and livestock sectors to facilitate exports of high value products to regional markets.







> Converting at least 50% of the remittances by Overseas Pakistanis into investments.
> 
> These remittances currently stand at US$ 13 billion a year. We intend to take this progressive initiative by offering special financial products to Pakistani diaspora.





حکومت سے اچھا کام ملک ریاض اور ڈی ایچ اے والوں نے کر دکھایا



> Pakistan holds sizeable reservoirs of oil, gas and other minerals. PML(N) will pursue mineral exploration and abstraction with renewed vigor while ensuring absolute protection of the interests of the nation. Foreign investment would be encouraged and facilitated in this sector. Development of this sector will be a game changer for Pakistan’s economy







> Budget Deficit will be brought down to 4%.







> Creation of Job Opportunities.







> Housing for Low Income Families.







> We will completely resolve the issue of circular debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan’s total public debt which was less than Rs. 3,000 billion on 30th June 1999 has increased to over Rs. 13,500 billion by the end of 2012. We will ensure that as a result of sound macro policies, public debt remains at sustainable level.







> Appoint independent and professional boards who in turn will appoint competent CEOs of state enterprises. Professional competence and merit will be the only criteria for appointment of boards and CEOs.
> 
> The immediate task of the boards and CEOs will be to manage these corporations effectively and to plug the losses.
> 
> PIA shall be transformed into a profitable and reputed airline of the Region.





ایسا سی ای او لائے جرمنی سے جس نے جہاز ہی بیچ ڈالا 



اور یہ ملاحظہ کریں قارئین کرام... یہ یقیناً عابد شرلی نے کسی یونیورسٹی کی ویب سائٹ سے چھاپہ تھا 
​


> Policy focus on ensuring Pakistan developing world class expertise by 2020 towards a Hydrogen Economy:
> 
> Fuel Cell Technology Research & Development and application.
> 
> Fuel Cell Technology based Product innovation, development & manufacture & export.





And the epic:



> Corruption has reached record heights in recent years. The PML(N) Government will adopt a zero tolerance policy for corruption.



@Kabira @Zibago @Farah Sohail @Shane

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## war&peace

Bashido said:


> Interpretation of the law is the jurisdiction of the SC??? How.


That's how it has always been. 


Sher Shah Awan said:


> This assembly was not elected with mandate? What does that even mean? Just because you don't like the party? I am sorry, you guys are not making any sense at all. If a party has 2/3 third majority or is able to get it with co-operation with other parties, there is no reason why they cannot change the constitution. Who invented the law that the 1973 constitution is unchangeable?
> 
> As for fundamental right, define "fundamental rights" of the people. I can already think of several amendments that contravene fundamental rights but Pakistanis seem to be happy with it. This statement and those supporting it just seem to be trying to make political statements.


You alone are making sense and alone are right while all others are wrong and talking none-sense?


----------



## Joe Shearer

@saiyan0321

Brilliant thread. I have to bring to your notice these two judgements, _which may not have gone unnoticed _by the quite vigorous Supreme Court that you now seem to have. I assume that you may not be completely familiar with these two; if you already know of them, my apologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.C._Golaknath_and_Ors._vs_State_of_Punjab_and_Anrs.

From the analysis of the first, this might excite your curiousity:



> The _Basic Structure doctrine_ forms the basis of *power of the Indian judiciary to review, and strike down, amendments to the Constitution of India enacted by the Indian parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this basic structure of the Constitution*.
> 
> The 13-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a sharply divided verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the court held that while the *Parliament *has "wide" powers, it *did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution*.



I have to absent myself from serious interaction until Friday at the earliest. My apologies for the teaser-trailer.

@M. Sarmad
@Kaptaan
@SecularNationalist
@jamahir

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shane

PakSword said:


>


Can you smell the hunger for more and the Greed hidden in the manifesto?

With the astronomical wealth that both Nawaz and Zardari have amassed ruling Pakistan over the years. There is still a golden bird still out of reach and to be had sometime in the near future...no small prize too:

The precious metal and mineral mines of Balochistan.

Makes Karachi Steel Mill and PIA look like peanuts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shane

Bashido said:


> Interpretation of the law is the jurisdiction of the SC??? How.


Following is an excerpt from the link:
https://www.dawn.com/news/881082

As in case of countries like India and the US, Pakistan has a federal constitution, which distributes powers between the centre and the provinces. Under Article 142 of the constitution, the federal legislature or parliament can make laws on subjects enumerated in the federal legislative list and the concurrent legislative list.

The constitution also places some restrictions on the powers of both federal and provincial legislatures. *If we go by the book, neither parliament nor a provincial legislature can encroach upon the other's legislative powers.*

*In the first place*, no law can be made which is in conflict with any of the fundamental rights granted by the constitution to the citizens. In this respect, *Article 8 of the constitution states *“Any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this Chapter [Chapter 1], shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”

*In the second place*, no law can be made which is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. In this connection, Article 227 of the constitution stipulates “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah...and no law shall be made which is repugnant to such injunctions.”

*In the third place*, parliament cannot make any law which is inconsistent with the basic character of the constitution—the fundamental law of the land.

*There are thus four main restrictions on the legislative powers of parliament.*
1) It cannot, except when a proclamation of emergency is in force, legislate on provincial subjects; and its laws cannot be incompatible with:
2) fundamental rights, 
3) Islamic injunctions and
4) the basic character of the constitution itself.

*It is from these restrictions on the legislative competence of parliament that the power of judicial review follows. The superior judiciary can invalidate an act of parliament that is beyond its legislative competence for any of the four reasons mentioned in preceding paragraphs.
______________________________________*
XXX END QUOTE XXX


In 2012, Supreme Court of Pakistan struck down the then recently passed Contempt Of Court Act 2012 by the parliament. 

The chief justice heading the bench said that the new COCA 2012 law was contrary to the provisions of several articles of the Constitution, including Article 63(1)(g), Article(25), Article 204(1) and Article 204(2) of the Constitution.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## undercover JIX

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Eh, I don't understand. It was the parliament that made the constitution, why can't the same legislators now make laws to amend it?


they need to amend the constitution first, and then pass any law which goes against current Constitution.
Guddi gdday ka khai hai kiya, just to save one na ahal person change all the laws and ignore constitution.

Apologies, I am too late to say this, already discussed.


----------



## Zibago

Kabira said:


> Mirpuri tell me one thing, why AJK keep voting for Nawaj Sarif?


Bhai jawab to dey na Sindh aur kpk key beghair kaisey karey gi constitutional ammendment



Crystal-Clear said:


> makrani people


Inka elaj hoga Naye Pakistan mein


----------



## Kabira

Zibago said:


> Bhai jawab to dey na Sindh aur kpk key beghair kaisey karey gi constitutional ammendment



N league already had 2/3 in parliament, they had opposition from KP and Sindh as allies etc This is how they can make change in constitution. You don't need provinces approval but 2/3 majority in parliament.


----------



## Zibago

Kabira said:


> N league already had 2/3 in parliament, they had opposition from KP and Sindh as allies etc This is how they can make change in constitution. You don't need provinces approval but 2/3 majority in parliament.


Um the opposition in Sindh is going to have the number game against them similar game for KPK and for Balochistan we cant say for sure with all the Zardari paid horse trading not sure how he is going to do that with only punjab in hand


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> @saiyan0321
> 
> Brilliant thread. I have to bring to your notice these two judgements, _which may not have gone unnoticed _by the quite vigorous Supreme Court that you now seem to have. I assume that you may not be completely familiar with these two; if you already know of them, my apologies.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.C._Golaknath_and_Ors._vs_State_of_Punjab_and_Anrs.
> 
> From the analysis of the first, this might excite your curiousity:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to absent myself from serious interaction until Friday at the earliest. My apologies for the teaser-trailer.
> 
> @M. Sarmad
> @Kaptaan
> @SecularNationalist
> @jamahir



That's an amazing judgment. As I highlighted before that the parliament does have limitations in the constitution. Article 238-239 do give the impression of absolute power but that the rest if the constitution is conflicted towards this. 

For example as I stated on page 1 that the Parliament cannot pass laws that curtail fundamental rights and these fundamental rights have been argued in case laws and have a complete chapter dedicated to them with detail. 

Tu bhaiyo curly balo walay logon ka genocide start nahi kar saktay bcz the parliament cannot make laws that intervene with right to life which is a fundamental right mentioned in the constitution. 

The thing is joe I will blame this mess on the non serious attitude of Pakistan in terms of governance. Running a country is no joke but we sure treated it like that. 

From 1947-2008 the musical chairs between democracy and military rule is right now on complete display how far back we are! We are asking questions that should have been answered in the 70s. Non serious attitude of politicians and leg pulling by parties and then military intervention stagnated our progress in parliamentary governance. 

Sigh well better late than never. 

As you can see our judgement of PLD 2015 SC 401 is very similar and the courts are defining the constitution and the roles of institution. They are right. I have personally been unable to find anywhere where the worlds parliament is supreme are stated. Supremacy is given to God and the constitution. Article 238-239 simply provide the illusion bcz of its messy and incomplete statement that Parliament can pass any laws but the constitution has placed restrictions for example parliament cannot pass any laws that curtail the fundamental rights and has provided judiciary power to strike that law down and the parliament cannot pass unislamic laws bcz if passed then the federal shariah court can strike them down. 

Quite frankly this is good. This is our evolution and the fruits of working with democracy are paying off as we are openly discussing the limitations of institution. 

Tell me joe. What was the reaction of political parties and Parliament in India when the courts laid down the limitations?


----------



## Shane

Current affairs show host Nadeem Malik disects the speech of PM about supremacy of Parliament to make *any law - *is incorrect:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

saiyan0321 said:


> That's an amazing judgment. As I highlighted before that the parliament does have limitations in the constitution. Article 238-239 do give the impression of absolute power but that the rest if the constitution is conflicted towards this.
> 
> For example as I stated on page 1 that the Parliament cannot pass laws that curtail fundamental rights and these fundamental rights have been argued in case laws and have a complete chapter dedicated to them with detail.
> 
> Tu bhaiyo curly balo walay logon ka genocide start nahi kar saktay bcz the parliament cannot make laws that intervene with right to life which is a fundamental right mentioned in the constitution.
> 
> The thing is joe I will blame this mess on the non serious attitude of Pakistan in terms of governance. Running a country is no joke but we sure treated it like that.
> 
> From 1947-2008 the musical chairs between democracy and military rule is right now on complete display how far back we are! We are asking questions that should have been answered in the 70s. Non serious attitude of politicians and leg pulling by parties and then military intervention stagnated our progress in parliamentary governance.
> 
> Sigh well better late than never.
> 
> As you can see our judgement of PLD 2015 SC 401 is very similar and the courts are defining the constitution and the roles of institution. They are right. I have personally been unable to find anywhere where the worlds parliament is supreme are stated. Supremacy is given to God and the constitution. Article 238-239 simply provide the illusion bcz of its messy and incomplete statement that Parliament can pass any laws but the constitution has placed restrictions for example parliament cannot pass any laws that curtail the fundamental rights and has provided judiciary power to strike that law down and the parliament cannot pass unislamic laws bcz if passed then the federal shariah court can strike them down.
> 
> Quite frankly this is good. This is our evolution and the fruits of working with democracy are paying off as we are openly discussing the limitations of institution.
> 
> Tell me joe. What was the reaction of political parties and Parliament in India when the courts laid down the limitations?




Chief:

Before I answer your question, may I ask you and all other Pakistani friends if they remember Cornelius J.? There is a truly juicy bit of information coming to you, that will warm your hearts!


----------



## Joe Shearer

saiyan0321 said:


> That's an amazing judgment. As I highlighted before that the parliament does have limitations in the constitution. Article 238-239 do give the impression of absolute power but that the rest if the constitution is conflicted towards this.
> 
> For example as I stated on page 1 that the Parliament cannot pass laws that curtail fundamental rights and these fundamental rights have been argued in case laws and have a complete chapter dedicated to them with detail.
> 
> Tu bhaiyo curly balo walay logon ka genocide start nahi kar saktay bcz the parliament cannot make laws that intervene with right to life which is a fundamental right mentioned in the constitution.



You are right, of course; the only thing I have to add to your observations is that 'Keshavananda Bharati' laid down a very, very broad foundation, that only said that the 'basic structure' of the Constitution could not be affected, but avoided the question of what that 'basic structure' was; you will find that the Mangaldas & Mangaldas (or whatever this branch of the split partnership calls itself now) blog gives some detail about some of the opinions. It was a 12 judge bench, and there were 11 individual, separate judgements! Finally Sikri J. had to summarise their views into a 'View of the Majority' precis with 6 propositions in it. The broadest view was that of Khanna J., who said that amendment meant changing a part, therefore there must be a whole, therefore amendment cannot alter the nature of the whole. Subtle, very subtle; also minimalist, nothing added that isn't there visible in the broad glare of daylight. In view of his later political history, this view has a delicious irony to it.

It was only subsequent judgements that elaborated on this basic proposition. How it did so is an exercise by itself; only hard core constitutional lawyers will be interested, and I would like to spare you the burden of wading through them (they are all mentioned under that URL).



> The thing is joe I will blame this mess on the non serious attitude of Pakistan in terms of governance. Running a country is no joke but we sure treated it like that.
> 
> From 1947-2008 the musical chairs between democracy and military rule is right now on complete display how far back we are! We are asking questions that should have been answered in the 70s. Non serious attitude of politicians and leg pulling by parties and then military intervention stagnated our progress in parliamentary governance.
> 
> Sigh well better late than never.



I sympathise but do not ENTIRELY agree. As I mentioned, just think of Cornelius!



> As you can see our judgement of PLD 2015 SC 401 is very similar and the courts are defining the constitution and the roles of institution. They are right. I have personally been unable to find anywhere where the worlds parliament is supreme are stated. Supremacy is given to God and the constitution. Article 238-239 simply provide the illusion bcz of its messy and incomplete statement that Parliament can pass any laws but the constitution has placed restrictions for example parliament cannot pass any laws that curtail the fundamental rights and has provided judiciary power to strike that law down and the parliament cannot pass unislamic laws bcz if passed then the federal shariah court can strike them down.
> 
> Quite frankly this is good. This is our evolution and the fruits of working with democracy are paying off as we are openly discussing the limitations of institution.
> 
> Tell me joe. What was the reaction of political parties and Parliament in India when the courts laid down the limitations?



Furious! Read for yourself. All hell broke loose after 'Golak Nath'. Indira packed the bench, put in a stooge as JI, who put together another (13 judge) bench to review Golak Nath, and that fell apart in disarray, when it was discovered that the hearing was baseless - NOBODY HAD FILED A REVIEW PETITION! 

The Bench was dissolved, the review was thankfully abandoned, the CJI in question permanently lost his reputation and became known as a sycophantic lickspittle, and the Court pieced together its views on the basic structure judgement by judgement.

(You might be interested to know that, after the Shah Bano case, where the political abandonment of women's rights in favour of the blackmailing, bullying view of the self-certified Muslim Personal Law Board was embodied in parliament passing a law to that effect, the courts fought back and implemented the law such that women got the very most that they might have hoped for under this inequitable law).

No politician or political party liked the judgement. They reacted very badly.



Joe Shearer said:


> You are right, of course; the only thing I have to add to your observations is that 'Keshavananda Bharati' laid down a very, very broad foundation, that only said that the 'basic structure' of the Constitution could not be affected, but avoided the question of what that 'basic structure' was; you will find that the Mangaldas & Mangaldas (or whatever this branch of the split partnership calls itself now) blog gives some detail about some of the opinions. It was a 12 judge bench, and there were 11 individual, separate judgements! Finally Sikri J. had to summarise their views into a 'View of the Majority' precis with 6 propositions in it. The broadest view was that of Khanna J., who said that amendment meant changing a part, therefore there must be a whole, therefore amendment cannot alter the nature of the whole. Subtle, very subtle; also minimalist, nothing added that isn't there visible in the broad glare of daylight. In view of his later political history, this view has a delicious irony to it.
> 
> It was only subsequent judgements that elaborated on this basic proposition. How it did so is an exercise by itself; only hard core constitutional lawyers will be interested, and I would like to spare you the burden of wading through them (they are all mentioned under that URL).
> 
> How did the pols react?
> 
> Furious! Read for yourself. All hell broke loose after 'Golak Nath'. Indira packed the bench, put in a stooge as CJI, who put together another (13 judge) bench to review Golak Nath, and that fell apart in disarray, when it was discovered that the hearing was baseless - NOBODY HAD FILED A REVIEW PETITION!
> 
> The Bench was dissolved, the review was thankfully abandoned, the CJI in question permanently lost his reputation and became known as a sycophantic lickspittle, and the Court pieced together its views on the basic structure judgement by judgement.
> 
> (You might be interested to know that, after the Shah Bano case, where the political abandonment of women's rights in favour of the blackmailing, bullying view of the self-certified Muslim Personal Law Board was embodied in parliament passing a law to that effect, the courts fought back and implemented the law such that women got the very most that they might have hoped for under this inequitable law).
> 
> No politician or political party liked the judgement. They reacted very badly.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> Before I answer your question, may I ask you and all other Pakistani friends if they remember Cornelius J.? There is a truly juicy bit of information coming to you, that will warm your hearts!



Hmmm. J? I do know about it A R Cornelius our fourth chief justice ( I would like to meet a lawyer in Pakistan who doesn't know his name. The man is a legend. Too bad his deeds and fight for Pakistan finds not a sentence in Pakistan history books)



Joe Shearer said:


> I sympathise but do not ENTIRELY agree. As I mentioned, just think of Cornelius!



Do point where you disagree and what do you think what hampered the legislative development of the state and the constitutional evolution of institutions? 



Joe Shearer said:


> Furious! Read for yourself. All hell broke loose after 'Golak Nath'. Indira packed the bench, put in a stooge as JI, who put together another (13 judge) bench to review Golak Nath, and that fell apart in disarray, when it was discovered that the hearing was baseless - NOBODY HAD FILED A REVIEW PETITION!
> 
> The Bench was dissolved, the review was thankfully abandoned, the CJI in question permanently lost his reputation and became known as a sycophantic lickspittle, and the Court pieced together its views on the basic structure judgement by judgement.
> 
> (You might be interested to know that, after the Shah Bano case, where the political abandonment of women's rights in favour of the blackmailing, bullying view of the self-certified Muslim Personal Law Board was embodied in parliament passing a law to that effect, the courts fought back and implemented the law such that women got the very most that they might have hoped for under this inequitable law).
> 
> No politician or political party liked the judgement. They reacted very badly.



Tss ufff. 

Yeah don't think our current govt can do anything even near that. It would open a Pandora's box and the media will pounce on it, the opposition will relish it, the people will criticize and then the army chief will end up making a statement which will create more buzz...


----------



## Shane

Supreme court has concluded the case proceedings and is about to give verdict or reserve judgement in Election Act 2017 case.

Supreme court shall decide to give a short order or reserve judgement today.

It is likely that parts of the act found to be against the letter and spirit of the constitution may be struck down by Supreme Court of Pakistan.


----------



## koolio

Lets see if Godfather escapes, I will reserve my judgement after the verdict, according to noony bogeys its the people's court who has a final say.


----------



## war&peace

Shane said:


> Can you smell the hunger for more and the Greed hidden in the manifesto?
> 
> With the astronomical wealth that both Nawaz and Zardari have amassed ruling Pakistan over the years. There is still a golden bird still out of reach and to be had sometime in the near future...no small prize too:
> 
> The precious metal and mineral mines of Balochistan.
> 
> Makes Karachi Steel Mill and PIA look like peanuts.


Their ultimate goal is to compromise the sovereignty and sell the nation at a flat rate like the British did with Kashmir. BTW some part of this nation actually deserves it. They have been slaves and slavery has entered into their genes and they can't think beyond that even if someone rapes their women and children, kills them publicly and insults their religion...they are the vile and uneducated people. They really deserve to be mauled by Colonel Harry Dyer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## koolio

Breaking news Election act struck down

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shane

koolio said:


> Breaking news Election act struck down


Was busy with life and just saw your message. Despite the smoke screen of PMLN aggression and pressure tactics, sanity, rule of law and constitution prevails, AlhamduliAllah!


----------



## koolio

Shane said:


> Was busy with life and just saw your message. Despite the smoke screen of PMLN aggression and pressure tactics, sanity, rule of law and constitution prevails, AlhamduliAllah!



This was expected the election act 2017 was illegal, despite his conviction was allowed to make political decisions, expect more wrath from SC, they will surely put pmln straight


----------



## Shane

koolio said:


> This was expected the election act 2017 was illegal, despite his conviction was allowed to make political decisions, expect more wrath from SC, they will surely put pmln straight


The government and the disqualified leader of PMLN along with his cronies tried to make it a chicken and egg debate, whereas, it is stipulated in the constitution that parliament can only legislate laws that are not in conflict with the constitution itself:


Shane said:


> *There are thus four main restrictions on the legislative powers of parliament.*
> 1) It cannot, except when a proclamation of emergency is in force, legislate on provincial subjects; and its laws cannot be incompatible with:
> 2) fundamental rights,
> 3) Islamic injunctions and
> 4) the basic character of the constitution itself.


----------



## ghazi52



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shane

war&peace said:


> They have been slaves and slavery has entered into their genes and they can't think beyond that even if someone rapes their women and children, kills them publicly and insults their religion...they are the vile and uneducated people


I agree with the above part of your post but don't you think you went overboard with Jallian wala Bagh analogy.


----------



## war&peace

Shane said:


> I agree with the above part of your post but don't you think you went overboard with Jallian wala Bagh analogy.



Sometimes it is necessary to incorporate a bit of history. If people keep drilling holes in the bottom of the boat while a few keep putting their fingers to stop the inflow of water, at some point the fingers will not be enough to plug all the holes and the boat will eventually sink. Happened to Pakistan in 1971 and USSR in 1991. Sins accumulated by a large number of individuals, if not rectified on time, would result in a tragic catastrophe over time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shane

war&peace said:


> Sometimes it is necessary to incorporate a bit of history. If people keep drilling holes in the bottom of the boat while a few keep putting their fingers to stop the inflow of water, at some point the fingers will not be enough to plug all the holes and the boat will eventually sink. Happened to Pakistan in 1971 and USSR in 1991. Sins accumulated by a large number of individuals, if not rectified on time, would result in a tragic catastrophe over time.


These historic references I have no argument against...you the force is strong with here. 

You are absolutely correct in your inference. Thank you for expanding on your earlier post.

This latest decision shows that our superior court is on the right path and the coming CJs are sure to continue to tighten the screws on the corrupt lot across the board.


----------



## undercover JIX

i Came across this, please review and Section 5 and 6 is very surprising to me .....

*Part XI: Amendment of Constitution*
*238* *Amendment of Constitution.*
Subject to this Part, the Constitution may be amended by Act of 635[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] 635.

636[
*239* *Constitution Amendment Bill.*
(1) A Bill to amend the Constitution may originate in either House and, when the Bill has been passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be transmitted to the other House.

(2) If the Bill is passed without amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.

(3) If the Bill is passed with amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall be reconsidered by the House in which it had originated, and if the Bill as amended by the former House is passed by the latter by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.

(4) A Bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that Province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership.

*(5) No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever. 

(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution. *


http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part11.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

saiyan0321 said:


> Hmmm. J? I do know about it A R Cornelius our fourth chief justice ( I would like to meet a lawyer in Pakistan who doesn't know his name. The man is a legend. Too bad his deeds and fight for Pakistan finds not a sentence in Pakistan history books)



....as in Cornelius J(ustice). For several judges, Shelat and Hegda, JJ. His real initials are A. R., as you have already pointed out.



> Do point where you disagree and what do you think what hampered the legislative development of the state and the constitutional evolution of institutions?



LOL

I meant the exact opposite. 

I meant to point out that one of the influences on these judgements of the Supreme Court of India was Cornelius; Pakistan was setting the pace at one time. What went wrong is another question, one for real experts, one for the next century to determine.




> Tss ufff.
> 
> Yeah don't think our current govt can do anything even near that. It would open a Pandora's box and the media will pounce on it, the opposition will relish it, the people will criticize and then the army chief will end up making a statement which will create more buzz...



But I believe that they have started giving judgements already on the cases they have been reviewing, and the judgements are conservative of the Constitution.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------

