Poll: Should there be investigation on Election Rigging allegations?

[Leader]

I am happy to learn from those who know better. In this case, it is the Supreme Court, not a overzealous tout of a political party.

I know better yet your arrogance is in way, you choose to be ignorant deliberately, but I am still offering you to learn, because I pity you for who you are at the moment, itna tou mera farz banta hai na ap ko apki hi jahalat say bachanay ka?

 

[VCheng]

I know better yet your arrogance is in way, you choose to be ignorant deliberately, but I am still offering you to learn, because I pity you for who you are at the moment, itna tou mera farz banta hai na ap ko apki hi jahalat say bachanay ka?

Sir, let us go back to Article 225 again:

225. Election dispute. No election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such tribunal and in such manner as may be determined by Act of Parliament.

Now let us see what the SC does in this case. Oh wait, there is no case before the SC as of yet, is there?

 

[Leader]

Sir, let us go back to Article 225 again:

225. Election dispute. No election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such tribunal and in such manner as may be determined by Act of Parliament.

Now let us see what the SC does in this case. Oh wait, there is no case before the SC as of yet, is there?

Yes we have discussed that already and I have explained you with basic common sense on board that a tribunal can only decide matters of the constituency and it cannot entertain a petition which challenges the whole election, that is prerogative of the Supreme court.

now what is that you dont comprehend here?

 

[VCheng]

Yes we have discussed that already and I have explained you with basic common sense on board that a tribunal can only decide matters of the constituency and it cannot entertain a petition which challenges the whole election, that is prerogative of the Supreme court.

now what is that you dont comprehend here?

Sir, it is you who is intentionally choosing not to comprehend what the phrase "No election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such tribunal ....." means.

NO election shall be called in question except by the prescribed method. NO ELECTION. One seat, or several or all.

 

[Leader]

Sir, it is you who is intentionally choosing not to comprehend what the phrase "No election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such tribunal ....." means.

NO election shall be called in question except by the prescribed method. NO ELECTION. One seat, or several or all.

Its clearly that you are fooling yourself, no election to a House clearly means constitunecy election. secondly if you want to challenge the whole election, which tribunal has the authority to entertain such a petition, plus a constitunecy's candidate, how can he freaking challenge the whole election when he is not even party to the whole election? you just need to put your ego and arrogance aide and see things for how they are.

 

[VCheng]

Its clearly that you are fooling yourself, no election to a House clearly means constitunecy election. secondly if you want to challenge the whole election, which tribunal has the authority to entertain such a petition, plus a constitunecy's candidate, how can he freaking challenge the whole election when he is not even party to the whole election? you just need to put your ego and arrogance aide and see things for how they are.

I can see how things are. You need to convince the SC of your attempted deviousness.

 

[Leader]

I can see how things are. You need to convince the SC of your attempted deviousness.

puff.. SC tou yahan nahi hai, all I am here is with you, who is uselessly being arrogant over a clear issue.. tell me if you dont undersatnd what I have stated, and that you have a valid point to counter it except for being arrogant?

 

[VCheng]

puff.. SC tou yahan nahi hai, all I am here is with you, who is uselessly being arrogant over a clear issue.. tell me if you dont undersatnd what I have stated, and that you have a valid point to counter it except for being arrogant?

What arrogance? I am merely being polite and truthful and consistent:

No election result can be challenged except as specified under Article 225.

 

[Leader]

What arrogance? I am merely being polite and truthful and consistent:

No election result can be challenged except as specified under Article 225.

puff again same arrogance, a tribunal cannot decide on Question of whole election, this power is with SC only. article 225 is for tribunal cases, its clear as broad daylight, but you are insisting as an arrogant person who refusing to learn the truth even when shown to him.

 

[VCheng]

puff again same arrogance, a tribunal cannot decide on Question of whole election, this power is with SC only. article 225 is for tribunal cases, its clear as broad daylight, but you are insisting as an arrogant person who refusing to learn the truth even when shown to him.

It matters not what you say. It matters what the SC does. So please tell us, what has the SC done? Nothing! Why? There is not even a formal petition. Why? Because it has no legs to stand on, legally speaking.

 

[Leader]

It matters not what you say. It matters what the SC does. So please tell us, what has the SC done? Nothing! Why? There is not even a formal petition. Why? Because it has no legs to stand on, legally speaking.

again arrogance and bringing SC again when we dont decide for SC, we are here to debate, and you are mistaken about a simple common sense issue here, and I am trying to fix your confusion. but you are refusing to learn a basic point. why this arrogance all the time? why dont you answer my question, if you are not understanding something, please feel free to ask, I am here to fix your confusion.

 

[VCheng]

again arrogance and bringing SC again when we dont decide for SC, we are here to debate, and you are mistaken about a simple common sense issue here, and I am trying to fix your confusion. but you are refusing to learn a basic point. why this arrogance all the time? why dont you answer my question, if you are not understanding something, please feel free to ask, I am here to fix your confusion.

As I have said before, I do not care what you say. I will respect what the SC decides.

 

[Leader]

As I have said before, I do not care what you say. I will respect what the SC decides.

What I say is truth, and you are confused at the moment, since on one hand I am speaking the truth and on the other hand its your lame view that SC is somewhat less body than tribunal. as clearly you are confused that 225 bounds SC to the decisions of tribunal. and also that whole election cannot be challenged in tribunal. that is lack of grammatical understanding

 

[VCheng]

What I say is truth, and you are confused at the moment, since on one hand I am speaking the truth and on the other hand its your lame view that SC is somewhat less body than tribunal. as clearly you are confused that 225 bounds SC to the decisions of tribunal. and also that whole election cannot be challenged in tribunal. that is lack of grammatical understanding

The truth is that the SC is bound to uphold the Constitution, including Article 225. The Constitution does not follow the SC, the SC must follow the Constitution. Is that too difficult a concept to understand?

 

[Leader]

The truth is that the SC is bound to uphold the Constitution, including Article 225. The Constitution does not follow the SC, the SC must follow the Constitution. Is that too difficult a concept to understand?

again you are also confused about constitutionalism in Pakistan. the constitution of Pakistan ensures free and fair election. and also that tribunal under 225 cannot take away this right from SC. stop hiding behind a vague view. this is constitution and its pretty clear. and also you are mistaken that SC cannot repeal or reject any legislation passed by parliament, which is against the fundamental rights and spirit of Islam.