Areesh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 45,157
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Bhai is k sath bhi fraud kar dia kia noon league nai?
Aur yeh decision kab aaye ga court ka?
Maryam Nawaz lashes out at Supreme Court judges
- Thread starter Norwegian
- Start date
Bhai is k sath bhi fraud kar dia kia noon league nai?
Aur yeh decision kab aaye ga court ka?
AZ1
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,834
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
@FOOLS_NIGHTMARE @muhammadhafeezmalik
Fraud karnay ki bhi hadh hoti hai really how you guys face yourself in front of mirror to support such corrupt fraud party?
PakSword
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 19,505
- Reaction score
- 103
- Country
- Location
Jab back door negotiations complete hojaeingi.
AZ1
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 11,834
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
case is simple straight
juldi khatum karna chahtay hai
4 hours mai same cheez 400 baar repeat ho chuki example
question yeh hai ke deputy speaker ne letter polling parha pehlay ya nahi.
waqfa.
waqfa waqfa.
but case is straight but hum late nahi karna chahtay case ko juldi nimtana chahtay hai
waqfa
waqfa
waqfa
question yeh hai ke deputy speaker ne letter polling parha pehlay ya nahi.
Acetic Acid
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2021
- Messages
- 2,479
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Kon pehly aaiy ga?
Faisla
Nawaz Sharif
Faisla
Nawaz Sharif
Dr. Strangelove
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,208
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Norwegian
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 19,001
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Enigma SIG
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,593
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Rank
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 10,771
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
apna Uzma-Alya ye Nawaz Sharif pehlay ayega kay faesla? meri manain tu Hamza ko CM banadain ... hamara kaam bas inko rolana tha inko inke okaat batana the
ye CM ban b jaye tu koi fark nahe parta hamnay inko thunn kay he rakhna hey unkay samaet jo inko laye hain lol
lastofthepatriots
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
- Messages
- 11,900
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Pakeez seeking justice from kanjar khana Pakee court:
Acetic Acid
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2021
- Messages
- 2,479
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Patwari mindset hahahahahahaha
Dr. Strangelove
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,208
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Patwaris have a brain the size of a peanut. Its is a miracle how they are able to function in their miserable lives.
YaqoobAlam
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2021
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Haseeb Bhatti
Published July 26, 2022 - Updated 5 minutes ago
The counsel for Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari, Irfan Qadir, informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that his client had instructed him not to participate further in the case proceedings and he would instead file a petition for review of the court’s decision not to constitute a full bench.
PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek also declined to participate in the court proceedings. However, they both stayed in the courtroom and watched the proceedings.
The development comes as the apex court resumed hearing PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi’s petition challenging the deputy speaker’s ruling in the recently held re-election for the Punjab chief minister, which led to Hamza Shehbaz’s victory.
The hearings commenced shortly after 11:30am. The ruling coalition had earlier said it would boycott the proceedings in protest. Lawyers for both sides had arrived in court earlier.
The developments so far
- SC rejects govt request for full court
- Ruling alliance announces boycott of proceedings
- Mazari, PPP’s lawyers tell court they will not participate in proceedings
- Deputy speaker to file review petition against decision not to constitute full bench
- CJP says bench not given “even one legal argument” for full bench formation; asks lawyers to rethink ‘boycott’ decision
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, is hearing the petition challenging Mazari’s ruling, which proved to be instrumental to Hamza Shehbaz’s victory.
During the election, Mazari had decided against counting the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers, which were cast in Elahi’s favour, citing a letter written by party President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in which he had instructed them to vote for Hamza instead.
During the election, Mazari had decided against counting the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers, which were cast in Elahi’s favour, citing a letter written by party President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in which he had instructed them to vote for Hamza instead.
‘Court not convinced for full bench’
The chief justice remarked that the bench had not been provided with even one legal argument in favour of constituting a full bench during yesterday’s hearing. “You asked for time which is why the hearing was adjourned,” he told Naek.
“Remain in the court and watch the proceedings. The legal question has not been answered yet,” he added.
Justice Bandial said the question was whether the party head could issue instructions to the parliamentary party. “According to the law, the parliamentary party makes the decision [who to vote for]. The party head can send a reference in case of deviation from the party policy.
“A full-court bench cannot be formed for this question.”
The chief justice said lawyers for all sides had been given time to present their arguments. The Supreme Court had dismissed the caretaker cabinet in 1988, the CJP continued, adding that the chief executive was the head of the cabinet.
“We want to wrap up the matter of Punjab chief minister as soon as possible. We could not be convinced to [constitute] a full bench.”
He iterated that a full bench could not be formed till the second week of September and said the court would now hear arguments on the case’s merit. “There is a crisis in the province because of this case. Further delaying tactics will not be tolerated,” he cautioned.
Justice Bandial said that the 21st Amendment was brought up during the hearing. “[Then] justice Azmat Saeed had observed regarding the 18th Amendment that vote would be cast in accordance with the party head’s instructions.”
However, he noted that the present case was different and the court would need assistance.
He also remarked that Article 63-A did not include the question of who would give the instructions. “At the time of the interpretation, the question was only about the consequences of defection.”
The CJP went on that if someone had comprehended the Constitution incorrectly, the interpretation could be cancelled.
“Misinterpreting the Constitution means that the Constitution has not been understood correctly,” he said, adding that out of 17 judges, eight had given their opinions on the 21st Amendment.
“But this is not the majority’s decision because a majority of nine judges is required,” the chief justice observed, adding that back then, the bench comprised 17 judges.
Separately, the CJP reiterated that he wanted to wind up the case at the earliest because of issues of governance and the crisis in Punjab.
The chief justice questioned whether the Supreme Court could be bound by the decision of eight of its 17 judges. “The majority of the full-court bench did not agree with the party head issuing directions,” he observed.
“Those who boycotted court proceedings have shown enough grace to sit and watch them,” he remarked.
“Remain in the court and watch the proceedings. The legal question has not been answered yet,” he added.
Justice Bandial said the question was whether the party head could issue instructions to the parliamentary party. “According to the law, the parliamentary party makes the decision [who to vote for]. The party head can send a reference in case of deviation from the party policy.
“A full-court bench cannot be formed for this question.”
The chief justice said lawyers for all sides had been given time to present their arguments. The Supreme Court had dismissed the caretaker cabinet in 1988, the CJP continued, adding that the chief executive was the head of the cabinet.
“We want to wrap up the matter of Punjab chief minister as soon as possible. We could not be convinced to [constitute] a full bench.”
He iterated that a full bench could not be formed till the second week of September and said the court would now hear arguments on the case’s merit. “There is a crisis in the province because of this case. Further delaying tactics will not be tolerated,” he cautioned.
Justice Bandial said that the 21st Amendment was brought up during the hearing. “[Then] justice Azmat Saeed had observed regarding the 18th Amendment that vote would be cast in accordance with the party head’s instructions.”
However, he noted that the present case was different and the court would need assistance.
He also remarked that Article 63-A did not include the question of who would give the instructions. “At the time of the interpretation, the question was only about the consequences of defection.”
The CJP went on that if someone had comprehended the Constitution incorrectly, the interpretation could be cancelled.
“Misinterpreting the Constitution means that the Constitution has not been understood correctly,” he said, adding that out of 17 judges, eight had given their opinions on the 21st Amendment.
“But this is not the majority’s decision because a majority of nine judges is required,” the chief justice observed, adding that back then, the bench comprised 17 judges.
Separately, the CJP reiterated that he wanted to wind up the case at the earliest because of issues of governance and the crisis in Punjab.
The chief justice questioned whether the Supreme Court could be bound by the decision of eight of its 17 judges. “The majority of the full-court bench did not agree with the party head issuing directions,” he observed.
“Those who boycotted court proceedings have shown enough grace to sit and watch them,” he remarked.
18th Amendment
He then directed Parvez Elahi’s lawyer, Ali Zafar, to assist the court in legal matters.
The lawyer said that the court had heard detailed arguments yesterday. “The matter here doesn’t concern the interpretation of Article 63-A.
“The court has already interpreted it before. Here, the matter concerns the directions of the party head,” Zafar said.
He pointed out that as per the 18th Amendment, the party head was given the power to take action against dissident members.
The lawyer said that the court had heard detailed arguments yesterday. “The matter here doesn’t concern the interpretation of Article 63-A.
“The court has already interpreted it before. Here, the matter concerns the directions of the party head,” Zafar said.
He pointed out that as per the 18th Amendment, the party head was given the power to take action against dissident members.
Elahi’s counsel’s arguments
Zafar said that in the judgement regarding the 21st Amendment, then Justice Jawad Khawaja had declared Article 63-A against the Constitution. “He was of the opinion that the law stops members from voting freely.
“But he didn’t include the reason of his opinion in the verdict,” he recalled, adding that he did not agree with the judge’s opinion.
A parliamentary party and the party leader were “two different things”, the counsel contended.
Justice Ahsan remarked that as per the Constitution, the party head ensured implementation of the parliamentary party’s decision.
Meanwhile, Justice Bandial said that the parliamentary party did not take decision on its own. “The political party’s decision is communicated to the parliamentary party, which in turn, takes its decision keeping that in view.”
He then asked Zafar: “What does the law say? On whose instruction should the vote be cast?”
The lawyer replied that the Constitution states directions regarding the vote were issued by the parliamentary party.
The chief justice then asked whether the parliamentary party was separate from the party head.
Zafar responded that during the tenure of former military dictator Pervaiz Musharraf, a law was introduced that empowered the head of the parliamentary party, instead of the party chief. “But that law was repealed through the 18th Amendment,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar asked about the definition of the party chief. “Is the party chief only the head of the political party?”
Justice Ahsan also inquired: “Where was the word parliamentary leader used?”
Zafar said that in 2002, parliamentary party was mentioned in the law concerning political parties.
Justice Ahsan stated that the word “parliamentary leader” instead of parliamentary party was a mere mistake.
Meanwhile, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said he would assist the court in accordance with Article 27 of the Constitution.
“But he didn’t include the reason of his opinion in the verdict,” he recalled, adding that he did not agree with the judge’s opinion.
A parliamentary party and the party leader were “two different things”, the counsel contended.
Justice Ahsan remarked that as per the Constitution, the party head ensured implementation of the parliamentary party’s decision.
Meanwhile, Justice Bandial said that the parliamentary party did not take decision on its own. “The political party’s decision is communicated to the parliamentary party, which in turn, takes its decision keeping that in view.”
He then asked Zafar: “What does the law say? On whose instruction should the vote be cast?”
The lawyer replied that the Constitution states directions regarding the vote were issued by the parliamentary party.
The chief justice then asked whether the parliamentary party was separate from the party head.
Zafar responded that during the tenure of former military dictator Pervaiz Musharraf, a law was introduced that empowered the head of the parliamentary party, instead of the party chief. “But that law was repealed through the 18th Amendment,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar asked about the definition of the party chief. “Is the party chief only the head of the political party?”
Justice Ahsan also inquired: “Where was the word parliamentary leader used?”
Zafar said that in 2002, parliamentary party was mentioned in the law concerning political parties.
Justice Ahsan stated that the word “parliamentary leader” instead of parliamentary party was a mere mistake.
Meanwhile, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said he would assist the court in accordance with Article 27 of the Constitution.
PTI’s arguments
Subsequently, PTI’s counsel Imtiaz Siddiqui began his arguments.
The chief justice recalled that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s lawyer had informed the court that a letter was sent to all party MPAs with clear instructions.
Siddiqui responded that the way voting was done for the re-election was in front of the court. The federal government had utilised all its resources and all party chiefs were present in Lahore at the time, he claimed.
The party chief’s letter should arrive in time, he pointed out.
The chief justice said the court would reach its decision in a “better way” if the counsels for all parties assisted the bench and asked those who had decided to boycott proceedings — Mazari and PPP’s counsels — to rethink their decision.
Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till 2:30pm.
The chief justice recalled that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s lawyer had informed the court that a letter was sent to all party MPAs with clear instructions.
Siddiqui responded that the way voting was done for the re-election was in front of the court. The federal government had utilised all its resources and all party chiefs were present in Lahore at the time, he claimed.
The party chief’s letter should arrive in time, he pointed out.
The chief justice said the court would reach its decision in a “better way” if the counsels for all parties assisted the bench and asked those who had decided to boycott proceedings — Mazari and PPP’s counsels — to rethink their decision.
Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till 2:30pm.
Mazari to file review petition
Talking to media persons outside court, Irfan Qadir, the deputy speaker’s lawyer, said that his client had decided against participating in the case further.
“There has been an unprecedented boycott across the country against the apex court’s verdict [on the full court bench],” he told reporters. “My client has decided to exercise the constitutional right and [file a] plea for a review of yesterday’s decision.”
Qadir said that he was hopeful the review petition would be fixed before a full-court bench, or one separate from the three-member bench. “And I am sure the case will be heard on the grounds of merit.”
Referring to Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s case, he said that a nine-member bench was formed to hear the matter of one judge. “Why is a three-member bench hearing the matter which concerns to the entire country?”
The Supreme Court, he added, had no right to interfere in the matters of the Parliament. “It should rather strengthen and stabilise it and vice versa.”
Addressing a press conference today, Punjab Home Minister Ataullah Tarar emphasised on the government’s demand for a full court bench.
He stated that the party’s lawyers did not participate during today’s proceedings, adding that a full court bench would only enhance the SC’s respect. “I think the law should be equal for all,” he said, adding that justice could not be served without the constitution of a full-court bench.
During the hearing on Saturday, the court had allowed Hamza — who was re-elected on July 22 — to remain “trustee” chief minister till July 25.
Yesterday, the government requested the constitution of a full bench.
The plea was, however, rejected as the CJP ruled that the full court would mean the hearing of the case would not resume before September due to unavailability of judges amid current vacation.
“But we can’t allow such state of affairs to drag and prolong,” Justice Bandial had said.
Subsequently, to register its protest against the SC’s decision, the ruling alliance in a late-night conference announced that it will boycott the judicial proceeding.
“There has been an unprecedented boycott across the country against the apex court’s verdict [on the full court bench],” he told reporters. “My client has decided to exercise the constitutional right and [file a] plea for a review of yesterday’s decision.”
Qadir said that he was hopeful the review petition would be fixed before a full-court bench, or one separate from the three-member bench. “And I am sure the case will be heard on the grounds of merit.”
Referring to Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s case, he said that a nine-member bench was formed to hear the matter of one judge. “Why is a three-member bench hearing the matter which concerns to the entire country?”
The Supreme Court, he added, had no right to interfere in the matters of the Parliament. “It should rather strengthen and stabilise it and vice versa.”
Addressing a press conference today, Punjab Home Minister Ataullah Tarar emphasised on the government’s demand for a full court bench.
He stated that the party’s lawyers did not participate during today’s proceedings, adding that a full court bench would only enhance the SC’s respect. “I think the law should be equal for all,” he said, adding that justice could not be served without the constitution of a full-court bench.
During the hearing on Saturday, the court had allowed Hamza — who was re-elected on July 22 — to remain “trustee” chief minister till July 25.
Yesterday, the government requested the constitution of a full bench.
The plea was, however, rejected as the CJP ruled that the full court would mean the hearing of the case would not resume before September due to unavailability of judges amid current vacation.
“But we can’t allow such state of affairs to drag and prolong,” Justice Bandial had said.
Subsequently, to register its protest against the SC’s decision, the ruling alliance in a late-night conference announced that it will boycott the judicial proceeding.
The election
During the election on Friday, Mazari rejected all 10 votes cast by the PML-Q on the pretext that they had violated the orders of their party chief, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, citing a letter he received from the patriarch which said he was asking his party lawmakers to back Hamza.
After counting the polled votes, the deputy speaker announced that Elahi bagged 186 votes, while Hamza could get 179 votes. However, he refrained from declaring Elahi the chief minister.
Instead, he indicated that as party chief, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s instructions to PML-Q members to vote for Hamza instead of Elahi held greater sway.
The deputy speaker then announced that Hamza had won the election of chief minister, since the 10 deducted votes reduced Elahi’s tally to 176, while Hamza remained on top with 179.
After counting the polled votes, the deputy speaker announced that Elahi bagged 186 votes, while Hamza could get 179 votes. However, he refrained from declaring Elahi the chief minister.
Instead, he indicated that as party chief, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s instructions to PML-Q members to vote for Hamza instead of Elahi held greater sway.
The deputy speaker then announced that Hamza had won the election of chief minister, since the 10 deducted votes reduced Elahi’s tally to 176, while Hamza remained on top with 179.
Elahi’s plea
In his petition, Elahi has requested the court to hold the deputy speaker’s ruling leading to Hamza’s re-election as “bogus and false”.
“Hamza Shehbaz may kindly be declared disqualified as the Punjab chief minister/ member of the provincial assembly,” the petition read.
It requested the court to declare the deputy speaker’s decision to discard the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers on grounds of Article 63-A of the Constitution as “unconstitutional”.
Instead, the petition said, the court may declare Elahi the “lawful returned candidate” and the PML-Q leader be allowed to take oath as the Punjab chief minister.
The petition further stated that Hamza should be restrained from taking the oath as the chief minister. It is pertinent to mention that Hamza had already been administered the oath of office by Punjab Governor Baleeghur Rehman earlier on Friday.
“Hamza Shehbaz may kindly be declared disqualified as the Punjab chief minister/ member of the provincial assembly,” the petition read.
It requested the court to declare the deputy speaker’s decision to discard the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers on grounds of Article 63-A of the Constitution as “unconstitutional”.
Instead, the petition said, the court may declare Elahi the “lawful returned candidate” and the PML-Q leader be allowed to take oath as the Punjab chief minister.
The petition further stated that Hamza should be restrained from taking the oath as the chief minister. It is pertinent to mention that Hamza had already been administered the oath of office by Punjab Governor Baleeghur Rehman earlier on Friday.
Similar threads
