Poll: Should there be investigation on Election Rigging allegations?

[VCheng]

cry me a river, but 225 clearly doesnot apply, a law made for tribunal cannot take away power of the SC under 184 which can be envoked for a Question of Free and Fair Election, guaranteed under the constitution.

for Justice you go to appropriate court, not to parliament, and precisely when the parliament itself is in question. basic concept of impartial and fair law.

Article 225 speaks for itself Sir. The rest is all your hope born of your own preferences.

 

[mr42O]

4 ppl who said no .. lolz

• Tameem
• Waffen SS
• FaujHistorian
• Chak Bamu

 

[Norwegian]

4 ppl who said no .. lolz

How did you know?

 

[Leader]

Article 225 speaks for itself Sir. The rest is all your hope born of your own preferences.

Yes it does speak what I have said, its for tribunals. tell me could a petitioner raise the question that whole election were a fraud in a tribunal? how hard is it to understand this?

 

[Leader]

How did you know?

click on the number of votes, it then shows.

 

[fatman17]

Please keep in mind Article 225 of the Constitution:

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.

what if the tribunal dosnt act or avoids such petitions, which is the case here?

 

[Leader]

what if the tribunal dosnt act or avoids such petitions, which is the case here?

which tribunal has the power to declare election valid or void? article 225 doesnot apply on it..

only SC can decide the matter.

 

[VCheng]

Yes it does speak what I have said, its for tribunals. tell me could a petitioner raise the question that whole election were a fraud in a tribunal? how hard is it to understand this?

You have said your opinion and I have said mine. Now let's wait for the SC to say its considered opinion on this matter.

 

[VCheng]

what if the tribunal dosnt act or avoids such petitions, which is the case here?

What is your basis for saying that, Sir? Tribunals are indeed looking at and deciding on all the cases brought before them.

 

[Leader]

What is your basis for saying that, Sir? Tribunals are indeed looking at and deciding on all the cases brought before them.

common sense and basic law understanding, anyone with that knows that 225 applies on tribunals and no petitioner can file a complain of constitutional nature in a tribunal. this is what SC is there for, to decide matters of constitutional nature.

 

[Jzaib]

only Noonb league supporters said No. i wonder why.

• Tameem
• Waffen SS
• FaujHistorian
• Chak Bamu
• Ranches

im sad to Chak Bamu in the list .

 

[VCheng]

common sense and basic law understanding, anyone with that knows that 225 applies on tribunals and no petitioner can file a complain of constitutional nature in a tribunal. this is what SC is there for, to decide matters of constitutional nature.

Like I said Sir, that is your opinion. However, it is for the SC to determine what carries legal merit. It cannot make any laws itself but can judge only what existing laws mean.

 

[Leader]

Like I said Sir, that is your opinion. However, it is for the SC to determine what carries legal merit. It cannot make any laws itself but can judge only what existing laws mean.

atleast you agree to this much, that SC has authority to determine.

now I further repeat myself so that your confusion is removed,

1. A tribunal in the general sense is any person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.

for example In Pakistan etc, the word "tribunal" is used to refer the court which are formed for some special purposes.

so article 225 empowers the tribunal to solve the disputes of the particular constitunecy.

but to determine whether the whole elections were a fraud or not, SC is the authority.

 

[VCheng]

atleast you agree to this much, that SC has authority to determine.

now I further repeat myself so that your confusion is removed,

1. A tribunal in the general sense is any person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.

for example In Pakistan etc, the word "tribunal" is used to refer the court which are formed for some special purposes.

so article 225 empowers the tribunal to solve the disputes of the particular constitunecy.

but to determine whether the whole elections were a fraud or not, SC is the authority.

I have no confusion Sir, it is crystal clear to me. Of course the SC is the final arbiter of the law as it is written, including Article 225. The SC itself cannot violate the Constitution nor can it make new laws itself. Now let's see what the SC says.

 

[Leader]

I have no confusion Sir, it is crystal clear to me. Of course the SC is the final arbiter of the law as it is written, including Article 225. The SC itself cannot violate the Constitution nor can it make new laws itself. Now let's see what the SC says.

your confusion is obvious, or you are not reading my posts with an open mind, otherwise its plain and simple.

let me try again, SC has power to judge free and fair election as guaranteed in the constitution, article 225 empower a tribunal to look into every matter related to a constituency.. If you can comprehend this much, I think your confusion will be cleared.
do read this time, cause reading will help you.