Farhatullah suggests parliament to limit Supreme Court's power

[Goenitz]

You need a 2/3 majority for that.

That is for amendment.. not for legislation. he said that

 

[Norwegian]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551951993534545920

SC had to intervene in Parliament because Deputy Speaker's ruling was unconstitutional Patwari

 

[Jango]

That is for amendment.. not for legislation. he said that

But article 191 is the one they want to change, no?

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Imran should come back to power, but I think we've witnessed both the former and current government fight the SC on 63A, and the SC read in favour of the party head last and this time stood on a less certain read about parliamentary majority.

Bhai it was always parliamentary party in constitution and SC order. In IK case he was in parliament so he had parliamentary party head status as well, and plus the decision of IK was endorsed by Punjab Parliamentary Party of PTI. In Chaudhry Shujaat case he didn’t have the elected status and the Punjab Parliamentary Party was unanimously in PA. Law gets interpreted the way its written, doesn’t matter if its IK or someone else.
Dost Mazari ruling was so silly that it should have been decided by a simple law graduate in a day, let alone by three qualified Judges of SC.

 

[Jango]

The funny thing is that the same SC was derided for PTI's loss in the national assembly and is now being praised by the same people here for PDM's loss in the provincial assembly. As I said in another thread, this mentality of "the only verdict I trust is the one that favors me" and "the only election that is fair is what I win" MUST end if rule of law is to take hold in Pakistan. We ALL must learnt to support what is right, not just what suits us.

Derision of the court for a decision is something I personally have no problem with, as long as it is within the norms of social conduct.

Criticize a decision, disagree with it, openly say it out loud that I do not agree with the decisions and XYZ is the constitutional or legal loophole in the judgement and I will stand with you.

But just giving a blanket statement that the bench is fixed, labeling judges as ABC, threatening them, is something that is not on.

Case in point, N league actually has some very valid points in the NS disqualification case, which even I agree with to an extent, and that judgement indeed has some loopholes. But there is simply no standing for N on this judgement.

Another example, in Roe vs Wade the US president came out and criticized the judgement, civil society criticized it, people said that the SC is a Republican one, bla bla bla, but there were no threats to the judges. Comparing us with the US might not be the most accurate of comparisons, but you get the point.

 

[VCheng]

Derision of the court for a decision is something I personally have no problem with, as long as it is within the norms of social conduct.

Criticize a decision, disagree with it, openly say it out loud that I do not agree with the decisions and XYZ is the constitutional or legal loophole in the judgement and I will stand with you.

But just giving a blanket statement that the bench is fixed, labeling judges as ABC, threatening them, is something that is not on.

Case in point, N league actually has some very valid points in the NS disqualification case, which even I agree with to an extent, and that judgement indeed has some loopholes. But there is simply no standing for N on this judgement.

Another example, in Roe vs Wade the US president came out and criticized the judgement, civil society criticized it, people said that the SC is a Republican one, bla bla bla, but there were no threats to the judges. Comparing us with the US might not be the most accurate of comparisons, but you get the point.

May be there is some hope left still for Pakistan, just a spark in the heaps of ashes everywhere.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

The funny thing is that the same SC was derided for PTI's loss in the national assembly and is now being praised by the same people here for PDM's loss in the provincial assembly. As I said in another thread, this mentality of "the only verdict I trust is the one that favors me" and "the only election that is fair is what I win" MUST end if rule of law is to take hold in Pakistan. We ALL must learnt to support what is right, not just what suits us.

Have to agree with the over all argument. But mostly people were upset with the delay in SC decision for presidential reference. Had that decision come earlier it would have greatly benefited PTI politically to counter the no confidence moves. But this was open and shut case, just like Qasim Suri ruling: you cant let 179 be bigger than 186 and give the right to rule to a smaller party. The constitution and previous SC judgement (which PMLN and PTI have not challenged yet) clearly talk about parliament party and its head (elected MNA/MPA in the parliament) and NOT the political party head - which can be unelected like Mian Saab or Altaf Hussain in London. This clause, which was translated by last SC order, was actually added by PPP in 18th amendment.

1- To phir aap nay itna rola tab kyun nhn dala tha when SC interfered with Qasim Suri's ruling?

2- You need a 2/3 majority for that.

Dont think you can do something like that even with 2/3 majority. Trichotomy of power is a little bit above that. For example even with 2/3 majority you can not abolish SC and say its just Executive and Legislature from now on in Pakistan.

 

[Jango]

Dont think you can do something like that even with 2/3 majority. Trichotomy of power is a little bit above that. For example even with 2/3 majority you can abolish SC and say its just Executive and Legislature from now on in Pakistan.

I think there are "some" ground rules in place, I believe through the Objectives Resolution or the Preamble, but do not quote me on that.

But sure, if someone is so stupid to do that, they probably can do that with a 2/3 majority.

 

[PakAlp]

The funny thing is that the same SC was derided for PTI's loss in the national assembly and is now being praised by the same people here for PDM's loss in the provincial assembly. As I said in another thread, this mentality of "the only verdict I trust is the one that favors me" and "the only election that is fair is what I win" MUST end if rule of law is to take hold in Pakistan. We ALL must learnt to support what is right, not just what suits us.

That's the mentality we follow. Anything that benefits us is praiseworthy and if it doesn't then all fingers are pointed at it. You can start by looking at the grassroot level, exact same mentality as our leadership. People need to learn to be fair, be just, stick for the righteous, then slowly families, villages, cities, mayors etc will know that Pakistani public will not tolerate injustice, the leadership will fear before making any wrong move.

 

[fna]

I think the pti folks, like myself, were only asking that the letter be read by the justices even if in-camera.

to make an apples to apples comparison.
1) suo moto on mazari decision
2) then without reading the letter or determining the nuances of party head vs parlimentary party give decision that the dy speaker actions are wrong.
3) Also time limit for election on April 9th, even this was violated on July 22nd.

If 1,2,3 were done for mazari then it would be equally egregious like the April 9th decision.

 

[Jazzbot]

I think I am in favor of this, not saying we should limit SC's powers but rather create a balance. It does feel like it's all down to SC judges to decide whatever is going to happen in this country and there is no questioning the judges. Think about the implications if the judges go completely rogue in future? No one should have infinite powers.