What's new

Resolution on judges challenged in IHC

pkpatriotic

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
0
ISLAMABAD: A writ petition was filed on Thursday in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against an expected resolution to be tabled in parliament for the restoration of the deposed judges.

The petition was filed by Maulvi Iqbal Haider under Article 199 of the Constitution through advocates Shahjahan Durrani, Zahoor Ahmad and Muhammad Ali. The Federation of Pakistan through the secretary law, justice and parliamentary affairs, the NA speaker and the deputy speaker were made respondents in the petition.

The petitioner prayed the court to restrain the NA speaker or any other member of the house presiding over the session from allowing any resolution to be placed before the National Assembly to discuss the conduct of the Supreme Court judges.

The petitioner asked the court to declare the NA speaker, the deputy speaker or any other member of the house as disqualified, if he/she allows any debate, discussion or question with respect to the conduct of judges of the superior courts, except the Constitutional Amendment Act Bill in pursuance of Articles 238 and 239 of the Constitution in the larger interest of independence of judiciary.

The petitioner also asked the court to declare that amendments made to the Constitution through the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) 2007 will remain enforced unless parliament does not amend them under Article 238 and 239 of the Constitution. He further stated that he came to know through the media that the ruling party was going to restore the deposed judges through a parliamentary resolution or executive order in contravention to the constitutional provisions as well as judgment of the apex court. He said the Article 63(i) and (g) contained that: “Any person acting in any manner prejudicial to the integrity of the judiciary shall be disqualified from being member of parliament.”
 
.
Petition has already been dismissed as being non maintainable because the case is already in review in the Supreme Court
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom