sparklingway
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,878
- Reaction score
- 0
Same day in the SC, Same courtroom, Same case from two diffrent writers.
Almeida says that the court was calm, quiet and rather easy on the government. Justice Jawwad Khwaja even commented that "We dont claim any right beyond the will of the people.
The News of course tries to incite opinion against the govt and has to include CJ in the headline as well.
Reading Almeida's report it does not seem that the CJ showed any anger whatsoever. What blatant yellow journalism!
May 25th, 2010 by Cy
ISLAMABAD: They were the hottest tickets in town, the special passes to the marquee event in Islamabad the Supreme Court hearings on Monday and Tuesday. Then, yesterday, something unexpected happened: nothing.
As 17 members of the countrys highest court solemnly filed into Courtroom No 1, there was an air of expectation. Special security, special passes, media in a tizzy surely something historic was in the making.
First up were the petitioners challenging parts of the 18th Amendment. Theres so many of them that at one point a score of lawyers crowded around the despatch boxes below Chief Justice Chaudhry to address the court.
The central complaint is easy enough to explain: the new process for appointing superior court judges is unconstitutional because it disturbs the basic structure of the constitution, hence it should be struck down.
Quickly, though, it became apparent the petitioners werent going to get a chance to argue their cases yesterday. The hearing was being postponed by the court. Ostensibly, the reason was the failure of the federations lawyers to submit written replies to the petitions.
Privately, long-time observers of the court were puzzled. The court seemed reluctant to proceed and grasped the delay on offer without much resistance. Why? Thats for the Islamabad rumour mill to grind out an answer.
The petitioners seemed deflated. One mentioned, resignedly, that he and his team had worked round the clock the last three weeks to prepare.
On a cooler day, it would have been easier to sympathise; yesterday, the soaring, vaulted courtroom had already begun to feel like a sauna by 9.30am.
Surviving through complicated constitutional arguments until 11, which is when the air conditioning is switched on in the otherwise unventilated courtroom, wasnt a particularly appealing prospect.
At this early stage, those looking for clues of the courts intentions honed in on the comments by Justice Jawwad Khwaja. The silver-haired, ponytailed judge remarked at one point, We dont claim any right beyond the will of the people.
An off-the-cuff remark or with deeper meaning? A strict constructionist, according to a senior lawyer, would interpret the comment only one way: the peoples elected representatives have spoken and they support the 18th Amendment; case closed.
We will see. Onwards to May 31, the date of the next hearing.
The courtroom had barely taken in the non-event when Kamal Azfar shuffled to the rostrum and with his sonorous voice delivered a blow to thoughts of a Babar Awan-Supreme Court confrontation today.
The details are mired in legalese, but this is in essence what happened: Azfar argued he needed time to study some documents from Switzerland which he had only just received; the Supreme Court agreed again without protest and granted him two weeks.
Inside the court, most failed to connect the dots immediately.
When Babar Awan appears in the Supreme Court today to explain why the NRO judgment hasnt yet been implemented, he will have a ready answer: the review petitions filed against the judgment have to be decided first.
That cant happen until at least June 7 now, which is when the review petitions will next be taken up. And thats when Azfar may use the Latin axiom ne bis in idem no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action to claim that the Swiss proceedings against President Zardari cant be reopened.
So is the big show turning into a damp squib? Who knows. This is Pakistan; expect the unexpected.
What everyone is asking, though: why did the Supreme Court grant adjournments so easily yesterday?
Did the pundits and politicians get it terribly wrong by whipping up fear of a final confrontation in the offing? Maybe.
Or maybe not. Perhaps the court has picked up on and responded to the increasing unease within the legal community and beyond.
Either way, definitive answers are unlikely this week.
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed anger at the government for not filing its reply in the 18th Amendment case.
A 17-member full court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was hearing a set of petitions, challenging the judicial commission for the appointment of superior courts judges provided in the 18th Amendment and called for immediate annulment of Article 175-A by terming it a law against the freedom of the judiciary.
Appearing on notice, Dr Abdul Basit, counsel for the Federation, submitted that he could not file a concise statement unless leave to appeal is granted. The chief justice, however, observed that there was no need to grant leave to appeal as under Article 184(3) after the issuance of notice you have filed the petition, adding the notice was issued on April 28, 2010.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that how could the case be heard when the government has not submitted its reply.Dr Basit and Ibrahim Satti informed the apex court that the Federation engaged them as counsel in the case on Saturday; therefore, they could not file a concise statement.
The CJ, however, asked the learned counsel that as they had got the notice; therefore, they must have filed the concise statements earlier. Accepting the mistake, Dr Basit responded that they must have filed the concise statement earlier.
He further contended that he had been in touch with the decision makers for the last three days, and they said that the Federation does not want adjournment of the hearing, so I will file my reply in mid of the case hearing.
The chief justice told the counsel that he cant file the concise statement in the middle of the case. The chief justice said that the government does not seem serious in the case. During the course of the hearing Attorney General Justice (R) Maulvi Anwarul Haq tried to say something about the concise statement. The chief justice, however, told him, You are the officer of the case, and the court has to see that being the chief officer of the court whether he could argue the case before the court on behalf of any party.
The chief justice asked the attorney general, if possible then get the minutes of proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) and the debate that took place in parliament for the approval of the 18th Amendment. If you provide these documents then it will be a great help on the part of the government, the CJ added.
Justice Jawad S Khawaja remarked that the debate in the PCCR took place for 960 hours, and civil society and lawyer gave a lot of suggestions. He said it was first time in the history that a Larger Bench is going to decide the contour of the institutions. We all are for the service of the people, and we dont have anything outside the will of the people, Jawad
S Khawaja added.
The chief justice in his remarks said the Supreme Court retains the power to review any constitutional amendment. Senior advocate of the Supreme Court Abdul Hafeez Pirzada also appeared before the court and submitted that he also wanted to file a petition in his personal capacity but he could not get the record regarding the 18th Amendment from the National Assembly archive, so he will file the petition on Tuesday today.
Around 15 petitions have been filed in the apex court against the 18th amendment. Some of the petitioners included Nadeem Ahmed advocate, Rawalpindi District Bar Association, Watan Party, Supreme Court Bar Association, Muhammad Ejazul Haq and others, making the Federation as respondent.
In his petition, Muhammad Ejazul Haq had also challenged the renaming of NWFP province as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Overall, the petitioners have challenged the judicial commission for appointment of superior courts judges provided in the 18th amendment and called for immediate annulment of Article 175-A by terming it a law against the freedom of judiciary.
They argued that the appointment of judges is linked with the independence of judiciary, thus judicial appointments cannot be made through the judicial commission having political involvement.
They stated that the formation of the judicial commission under the 18th amendment was against the basic structure of the Constitution and independence of judiciary. They said that in the Islamic history, the judiciary was considered highly respectable institution, adding that there was hardly any country in the world which had undermined the independence of judiciary as the government was trying through Article 175-A. Later, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing till May 31.
Almeida says that the court was calm, quiet and rather easy on the government. Justice Jawwad Khwaja even commented that "We dont claim any right beyond the will of the people.
The News of course tries to incite opinion against the govt and has to include CJ in the headline as well.
Reading Almeida's report it does not seem that the CJ showed any anger whatsoever. What blatant yellow journalism!
Dawn: From Courtroom No 1 By Cyril Almeida
May 25th, 2010 by Cy
ISLAMABAD: They were the hottest tickets in town, the special passes to the marquee event in Islamabad the Supreme Court hearings on Monday and Tuesday. Then, yesterday, something unexpected happened: nothing.
As 17 members of the countrys highest court solemnly filed into Courtroom No 1, there was an air of expectation. Special security, special passes, media in a tizzy surely something historic was in the making.
First up were the petitioners challenging parts of the 18th Amendment. Theres so many of them that at one point a score of lawyers crowded around the despatch boxes below Chief Justice Chaudhry to address the court.
The central complaint is easy enough to explain: the new process for appointing superior court judges is unconstitutional because it disturbs the basic structure of the constitution, hence it should be struck down.
Quickly, though, it became apparent the petitioners werent going to get a chance to argue their cases yesterday. The hearing was being postponed by the court. Ostensibly, the reason was the failure of the federations lawyers to submit written replies to the petitions.
Privately, long-time observers of the court were puzzled. The court seemed reluctant to proceed and grasped the delay on offer without much resistance. Why? Thats for the Islamabad rumour mill to grind out an answer.
The petitioners seemed deflated. One mentioned, resignedly, that he and his team had worked round the clock the last three weeks to prepare.
On a cooler day, it would have been easier to sympathise; yesterday, the soaring, vaulted courtroom had already begun to feel like a sauna by 9.30am.
Surviving through complicated constitutional arguments until 11, which is when the air conditioning is switched on in the otherwise unventilated courtroom, wasnt a particularly appealing prospect.
At this early stage, those looking for clues of the courts intentions honed in on the comments by Justice Jawwad Khwaja. The silver-haired, ponytailed judge remarked at one point, We dont claim any right beyond the will of the people.
An off-the-cuff remark or with deeper meaning? A strict constructionist, according to a senior lawyer, would interpret the comment only one way: the peoples elected representatives have spoken and they support the 18th Amendment; case closed.
We will see. Onwards to May 31, the date of the next hearing.
The courtroom had barely taken in the non-event when Kamal Azfar shuffled to the rostrum and with his sonorous voice delivered a blow to thoughts of a Babar Awan-Supreme Court confrontation today.
The details are mired in legalese, but this is in essence what happened: Azfar argued he needed time to study some documents from Switzerland which he had only just received; the Supreme Court agreed again without protest and granted him two weeks.
Inside the court, most failed to connect the dots immediately.
When Babar Awan appears in the Supreme Court today to explain why the NRO judgment hasnt yet been implemented, he will have a ready answer: the review petitions filed against the judgment have to be decided first.
That cant happen until at least June 7 now, which is when the review petitions will next be taken up. And thats when Azfar may use the Latin axiom ne bis in idem no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action to claim that the Swiss proceedings against President Zardari cant be reopened.
So is the big show turning into a damp squib? Who knows. This is Pakistan; expect the unexpected.
What everyone is asking, though: why did the Supreme Court grant adjournments so easily yesterday?
Did the pundits and politicians get it terribly wrong by whipping up fear of a final confrontation in the offing? Maybe.
Or maybe not. Perhaps the court has picked up on and responded to the increasing unease within the legal community and beyond.
Either way, definitive answers are unlikely this week.
18th Amendment case CJ expresses anger at govts failure to file reply
Says govt doesnt seem serious; SC retains power to review any constitutional amendment; hearing adjourned till 31st
By our correspondentSays govt doesnt seem serious; SC retains power to review any constitutional amendment; hearing adjourned till 31st
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed anger at the government for not filing its reply in the 18th Amendment case.
A 17-member full court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was hearing a set of petitions, challenging the judicial commission for the appointment of superior courts judges provided in the 18th Amendment and called for immediate annulment of Article 175-A by terming it a law against the freedom of the judiciary.
Appearing on notice, Dr Abdul Basit, counsel for the Federation, submitted that he could not file a concise statement unless leave to appeal is granted. The chief justice, however, observed that there was no need to grant leave to appeal as under Article 184(3) after the issuance of notice you have filed the petition, adding the notice was issued on April 28, 2010.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that how could the case be heard when the government has not submitted its reply.Dr Basit and Ibrahim Satti informed the apex court that the Federation engaged them as counsel in the case on Saturday; therefore, they could not file a concise statement.
The CJ, however, asked the learned counsel that as they had got the notice; therefore, they must have filed the concise statements earlier. Accepting the mistake, Dr Basit responded that they must have filed the concise statement earlier.
He further contended that he had been in touch with the decision makers for the last three days, and they said that the Federation does not want adjournment of the hearing, so I will file my reply in mid of the case hearing.
The chief justice told the counsel that he cant file the concise statement in the middle of the case. The chief justice said that the government does not seem serious in the case. During the course of the hearing Attorney General Justice (R) Maulvi Anwarul Haq tried to say something about the concise statement. The chief justice, however, told him, You are the officer of the case, and the court has to see that being the chief officer of the court whether he could argue the case before the court on behalf of any party.
The chief justice asked the attorney general, if possible then get the minutes of proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) and the debate that took place in parliament for the approval of the 18th Amendment. If you provide these documents then it will be a great help on the part of the government, the CJ added.
Justice Jawad S Khawaja remarked that the debate in the PCCR took place for 960 hours, and civil society and lawyer gave a lot of suggestions. He said it was first time in the history that a Larger Bench is going to decide the contour of the institutions. We all are for the service of the people, and we dont have anything outside the will of the people, Jawad
S Khawaja added.
The chief justice in his remarks said the Supreme Court retains the power to review any constitutional amendment. Senior advocate of the Supreme Court Abdul Hafeez Pirzada also appeared before the court and submitted that he also wanted to file a petition in his personal capacity but he could not get the record regarding the 18th Amendment from the National Assembly archive, so he will file the petition on Tuesday today.
Around 15 petitions have been filed in the apex court against the 18th amendment. Some of the petitioners included Nadeem Ahmed advocate, Rawalpindi District Bar Association, Watan Party, Supreme Court Bar Association, Muhammad Ejazul Haq and others, making the Federation as respondent.
In his petition, Muhammad Ejazul Haq had also challenged the renaming of NWFP province as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Overall, the petitioners have challenged the judicial commission for appointment of superior courts judges provided in the 18th amendment and called for immediate annulment of Article 175-A by terming it a law against the freedom of judiciary.
They argued that the appointment of judges is linked with the independence of judiciary, thus judicial appointments cannot be made through the judicial commission having political involvement.
They stated that the formation of the judicial commission under the 18th amendment was against the basic structure of the Constitution and independence of judiciary. They said that in the Islamic history, the judiciary was considered highly respectable institution, adding that there was hardly any country in the world which had undermined the independence of judiciary as the government was trying through Article 175-A. Later, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing till May 31.
