PakSword
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 19,505
- Reaction score
- 103
- Country
- Location
Nahi bhai buhat dheet hain.. yaheen kaheen mandla rahay hain..After the decision, most of them have disappeared; jaesay "gadhay kay sir say seengh".
Supreme Court Pakistan and COAS Bajwa Extension: News & Discussions
- Thread starter Village life
- Start date
SIPRA
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2019
- Messages
- 13,549
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Nahi bhai buhat dheet hain.. yaheen kaheen mandla rahay hain..
Yes. Today, they are in shock, but would recover by tomorrow, at the most.
Goku
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2019
- Messages
- 948
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I hope its a sarcastic comment from you.We should admit Indian supremacy. They can buy whoever they want in Pakistan and make Pakistanis think what India wants them to think.
To distract Pakistan from Kashmir issue they have succeeded massively.
First Maulana dharna.
Now a disgraced army who may have lost the will to do anything.
Well played India.
We may have got rid of the British but we are still a vessel state of India with strings of our rich and powerful in the Indian hands and people's brains manipulated by Indian movies and media. People can only think what
Ideas India puts in their heads. Politicians can only do what India allows them to do.
Last standing resistance, the army was defeated today.
How is this current COAS issue anything to do with India?
First it was your defence secretary's fault that he made such an immature blunder(notification) and your PM signed it blindly. So is def sec , PM ,his advisors on India's payroll? I dont think so.
Next def sec blunder was exploited by some petitioner ( i bet he was paid money for such petitions but not by india but by your COAS's internal enemies cz whole world knows whose most powerful in Pakistan). Such petitioners are common in India as well.
Next CJP had not moral authority to question extension ,yes he rightly objected notification blunder. Civilian government has all rights on Military matters. Probably CJP wanted to show his power. Even here in India SC interferes in executive domain for which it is rightly criticized. And if our government decides to extend our COAS tenure, no one would bat an eye.
So i dont think so India has anything to do with this
Green Arrow
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Now it is up to opposition to support the Govt in parliament or not. We are definitely heading towards major showdown in next few months. I think ISPR will come out soon as well
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,045
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
Legislating on army chief's appointment 'a matter of honour' for govt: attorney general
November 28, 2019
Special Assistant to the PM on Information & Broadcasting Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, SAPM on Accountability Mirza Shahzad Akbar, Attorney General of Pakistan Anwer Mansoor Khan and Barrister Dr. Mohammad Farogh Naseem addressing a Press Conference in Islamabad on Thursday. — PID
Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan on Thursday said that to legislate on the matter of an army chief's appointment and extension of tenure "will be a matter of honour for the government".
"This is not a matter of adversity for the government," said AG Khan, as he addressed a press conference following the court's verdict earlier in the day which had stated that Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa will serve as the army chief for six more months.
The court had announced its decision while directing the government to pass legislation which it said was missing from existing laws. The short order had noted that according to Article 243, the authority to appoint an army chief lies with the president. However, there is no duration of appointment specified in the Article.
"Today's decision is a historical decision. The way the Constitution has been interpreted will provide guidance for us in the future," said the attorney general.
Speaking of the unprecedented nature of the case and the proceedings that followed for three days, he said it was important to note that "various laws were debated upon and many things came to the fore which were never before decided in court".
"It is important to state here that the Army Act is pre-partition and after small modifications, it is being amended. It was never before challenged in court," said AG Khan.
He said that was the reason why "no one ever realised the mistakes involved in the procedures that were being followed".
The attorney general said that prior to Gen Bajwa's appointment, many chiefs of staff were appointed and many got extensions using the same method that was employed this time around.
"The summaries were the same and the rules were followed in the same manner. There were no additions or any changes made."
He said that it had been a custom to do things the existing way and so when the first notification was issued it was "a routine notification".
AG Khan said that the court, in its observations, had consistently referred to two things:
He said that the court had pointed out that in all past notifications and summaries, Regulation 255 was cited and had said that the rule does not pertain to the chief of the army staff and so should not be mentioned.
AG Khan said that the prime minister, since the inception of his government, had categorically stated that the law and the Constitution should be followed.
He said that the court while instructing the government on the amendments required in the notification, had kept on stating that "Article 243 should exclusively be mentioned and there should be no mention of Regulation 255".
The attorney general said that resultantly the notification submitted in court today morning only referred to Article 243. He said that the government was then instructed to "remove the court's name with reference to a delay" which was then removed.
AG Khan then went on to explain the crux of the short order. He said that the court had noted that Article 243 states that the appointment of an army chief by the president "is subject to law" but since there exists no law for the appointment, "they have asked us to make a law mentioning the tenure and the methodology of his appointment".
The attorney general also advised the media not to "talk against Pakistan". "Ever since the judgment was announced, I was watching TV shows. The matter was being presented in a very odd manner."
"Our enemies abroad are taking undue advantage of that. Pakistan is yours as much as it is ours. Do not talk against Pakistan or speak about anything which gives them the opportunity to talk against us."
Naseem warns media against running 'fake news'
Farogh Naseem, taking the floor, said that the judges "had admitted that Article 243 was a point of first impression".
He reminded the media persons gathered there that a petition challenging Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani's extension had been filed but was dimissed without a verdict "due to non prosecution".
"If the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter then, we would have had the guidelines this time around."
He thanked the three-member bench for "providing the government guidance at every moment".
He said that comments are sometimes made in the courtroom to lighten the atmosphere. Referring to one such comment by "a judge when he told the attorney general he too could then be an army chief", Naseem said that it was ill-advised to run such comments as "breaking news".
He said that the judges simply seek to provide guidance and their remarks should be interpreted through that lens.
He said that the media was selectively showing "negative commentary" but avoiding to cover positive aspects of proceedings "such as when Justice Mansoor Ali Shah praised Naseem on multiple occasions: 'He is doing good work. His drafting is solid. He will get things done immediately.' "Why were these comments not run as breaking news?" asked Naseem.
Saying that there was no truth behind the alleged reprimanding of Naseem, Shahzad Akbar, and the attorney general by the prime minister and Gen Bajwa, he warned the media that the government is considering taking action against outlets which had run this "fake news".
"The channels should either inform us about who gave them this news or if they are helpless and cannot, then action will be taken."
He also regretted the airing of "similar false news" regarding his "licence not being intact". "I got permission today, had my licence and appeared in court."
"So please understand the context. This was a delicate case pertaining to Pakistan's security agencies, your chief of army staff."
He said India was having a field day because of the way it had been presented by the media.
"We should all have demonstrated responsibility. This was not such a case in which we should have felt the need to flout our expertise in journalism."
"You can flex your journalistic muscle but [not in such cases]," he said, before telling media persons: "You are an inseparable pillar of the state".
November 28, 2019
Special Assistant to the PM on Information & Broadcasting Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, SAPM on Accountability Mirza Shahzad Akbar, Attorney General of Pakistan Anwer Mansoor Khan and Barrister Dr. Mohammad Farogh Naseem addressing a Press Conference in Islamabad on Thursday. — PID
Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan on Thursday said that to legislate on the matter of an army chief's appointment and extension of tenure "will be a matter of honour for the government".
"This is not a matter of adversity for the government," said AG Khan, as he addressed a press conference following the court's verdict earlier in the day which had stated that Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa will serve as the army chief for six more months.
The court had announced its decision while directing the government to pass legislation which it said was missing from existing laws. The short order had noted that according to Article 243, the authority to appoint an army chief lies with the president. However, there is no duration of appointment specified in the Article.
"Today's decision is a historical decision. The way the Constitution has been interpreted will provide guidance for us in the future," said the attorney general.
Speaking of the unprecedented nature of the case and the proceedings that followed for three days, he said it was important to note that "various laws were debated upon and many things came to the fore which were never before decided in court".
"It is important to state here that the Army Act is pre-partition and after small modifications, it is being amended. It was never before challenged in court," said AG Khan.
He said that was the reason why "no one ever realised the mistakes involved in the procedures that were being followed".
The attorney general said that prior to Gen Bajwa's appointment, many chiefs of staff were appointed and many got extensions using the same method that was employed this time around.
"The summaries were the same and the rules were followed in the same manner. There were no additions or any changes made."
He said that it had been a custom to do things the existing way and so when the first notification was issued it was "a routine notification".
AG Khan said that the court, in its observations, had consistently referred to two things:
- A general (currently) does not have a superannuation age.
- No law mentions the chief of army staff — how he will be appointed or what his "term of office" will be.
He said that the court had pointed out that in all past notifications and summaries, Regulation 255 was cited and had said that the rule does not pertain to the chief of the army staff and so should not be mentioned.
AG Khan said that the prime minister, since the inception of his government, had categorically stated that the law and the Constitution should be followed.
He said that the court while instructing the government on the amendments required in the notification, had kept on stating that "Article 243 should exclusively be mentioned and there should be no mention of Regulation 255".
The attorney general said that resultantly the notification submitted in court today morning only referred to Article 243. He said that the government was then instructed to "remove the court's name with reference to a delay" which was then removed.
AG Khan then went on to explain the crux of the short order. He said that the court had noted that Article 243 states that the appointment of an army chief by the president "is subject to law" but since there exists no law for the appointment, "they have asked us to make a law mentioning the tenure and the methodology of his appointment".
The attorney general also advised the media not to "talk against Pakistan". "Ever since the judgment was announced, I was watching TV shows. The matter was being presented in a very odd manner."
"Our enemies abroad are taking undue advantage of that. Pakistan is yours as much as it is ours. Do not talk against Pakistan or speak about anything which gives them the opportunity to talk against us."
Naseem warns media against running 'fake news'
Farogh Naseem, taking the floor, said that the judges "had admitted that Article 243 was a point of first impression".
He reminded the media persons gathered there that a petition challenging Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani's extension had been filed but was dimissed without a verdict "due to non prosecution".
"If the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter then, we would have had the guidelines this time around."
He thanked the three-member bench for "providing the government guidance at every moment".
He said that comments are sometimes made in the courtroom to lighten the atmosphere. Referring to one such comment by "a judge when he told the attorney general he too could then be an army chief", Naseem said that it was ill-advised to run such comments as "breaking news".
He said that the judges simply seek to provide guidance and their remarks should be interpreted through that lens.
He said that the media was selectively showing "negative commentary" but avoiding to cover positive aspects of proceedings "such as when Justice Mansoor Ali Shah praised Naseem on multiple occasions: 'He is doing good work. His drafting is solid. He will get things done immediately.' "Why were these comments not run as breaking news?" asked Naseem.
Saying that there was no truth behind the alleged reprimanding of Naseem, Shahzad Akbar, and the attorney general by the prime minister and Gen Bajwa, he warned the media that the government is considering taking action against outlets which had run this "fake news".
"The channels should either inform us about who gave them this news or if they are helpless and cannot, then action will be taken."
He also regretted the airing of "similar false news" regarding his "licence not being intact". "I got permission today, had my licence and appeared in court."
"So please understand the context. This was a delicate case pertaining to Pakistan's security agencies, your chief of army staff."
He said India was having a field day because of the way it had been presented by the media.
"We should all have demonstrated responsibility. This was not such a case in which we should have felt the need to flout our expertise in journalism."
"You can flex your journalistic muscle but [not in such cases]," he said, before telling media persons: "You are an inseparable pillar of the state".
SABRE
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Having read some of the comments in this thread - and other past threads related to different political situations - I just feel like throwing in a chair in this ring. I have seen unbecoming of people here (& there). It is distasteful to see some members, who I assume are educated people, use a language not even befitting for streets, and as someone who has frequented streets in the past I have indeed not heard such language there. Though the language has not been excessively abusive it is amateurish.
Our political and judicial system may be flawed - and we know why they are like that, and no the blame does not only lay with the political authorities - but these institutions represent the fundamental rights of the people. You may not like it but you have to respect it, and you may not agree with their decisions but you have to accept it.
Where you have the fundamental right to criticise institutions - in this case, the SC - then know this that the SC has the legal right to question any governmental action it deems to fall outside the purview of the constitution or not well defined in the constitution. Clearly this has been the case of the later.
I highly doubt that this is a part of a 5th Gen warfare tactic by India or the US or Israel. We have been throwing this term around in both countries like a rag doll, not even realising its potential fallout. This could lead to mass hysteria and paranoia against our own kin. Not everyone who holds an opposing view and criticises the government is the enemy of the state. Dissent is democracy's soul and no corrections and rights can be made unless mistakes and wrongs are pointed out. Success is achieved by learning from failure. Ignoring or overlooking failures or forcing someone to say "sab acha hay" will eventually lead you into a ditch.
I hope that this becomes a learning experience for the government, state, and the nation.
Our political and judicial system may be flawed - and we know why they are like that, and no the blame does not only lay with the political authorities - but these institutions represent the fundamental rights of the people. You may not like it but you have to respect it, and you may not agree with their decisions but you have to accept it.
Where you have the fundamental right to criticise institutions - in this case, the SC - then know this that the SC has the legal right to question any governmental action it deems to fall outside the purview of the constitution or not well defined in the constitution. Clearly this has been the case of the later.
I highly doubt that this is a part of a 5th Gen warfare tactic by India or the US or Israel. We have been throwing this term around in both countries like a rag doll, not even realising its potential fallout. This could lead to mass hysteria and paranoia against our own kin. Not everyone who holds an opposing view and criticises the government is the enemy of the state. Dissent is democracy's soul and no corrections and rights can be made unless mistakes and wrongs are pointed out. Success is achieved by learning from failure. Ignoring or overlooking failures or forcing someone to say "sab acha hay" will eventually lead you into a ditch.
I hope that this becomes a learning experience for the government, state, and the nation.
Green Arrow
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Kathin_Singh
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
We should admit Indian supremacy. They can buy whoever they want in Pakistan and make Pakistanis think what India wants them to think.
To distract Pakistan from Kashmir issue they have succeeded massively.
First Maulana dharna.
Now a disgraced army who may have lost the will to do anything.
Well played India.
We may have got rid of the British but we are still a vessel state of India with strings of our rich and powerful in the Indian hands and people's brains manipulated by Indian movies and media. People can only think what
Ideas India puts in their heads. Politicians can only do what India allows them to do.
Last standing resistance, the army was defeated today.
I agree with you on Kashmir part.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Apparently, per the SC, even the length of term of the regular appointment of the COAS isn’t properly defined in the laws.
POPEYE-Sailor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,886
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
crankthatskunk
BANNED
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,548
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Even if simple majority is required, the Government cannot get it passed from the upper house of the Parliament without Opposition support.
If you meant passed from senate, it would be. The only requirement is that the bill would be sent to the Senate 3 times, after 3rd time it would become the law if Senate fails to pass it.
Pakistan Ka Beta
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2019
- Messages
- 3,490
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Please forgive me for sharing it here because it is about Institutions and linked with Army as well .
# I will request admin / Moderator to not delete the thread if he dont want to discuss plz block the Comments only .
1 . We discussed alot of negative about Army but never appreciate their Sacrifices for example during War on terror , 2019 Feb stand off e.t.c
2 . Aitezaz Ahsan n many other said that Courts has no authority in COAS selection or reappoinment , its executive authority but they take it up by changing narratives when Petitioner said that i want to take it back Court said we converted it into Suo Moto ( on Suspension day ) n then other day Court said no it was not Suo Moto it was petition .
3 . Long thing Short today Signs of Clashes are becoming visible , Parliamentary committe of Appointing Judges , 4 from NA n 4 from Senate which includes PPP ,PTI , PML.N e.t.c members made amendment today about appoinment of Judges .
4 . High Courts , Supreme Court Judges now will be interviewed ( brace urself for those questions ) with power of rejection before Appointment or notification before that 8 Member committee of many parties of both houses .
5 . Now Supreme Court if reject it brace urself for a Situation which was under consideration after negative or Worse COAS tenure verdict on 28 Nov 2019 .
IN SHORT SUPREME COURT SHOULD FIRST FOCUS ON ITSELF N PENDING CASES , terrorists cases , Judges accountability because they did clash with Gen Musharraf , Zardari , Nawaz now Imran Khan as well , STORMS ARE COMMING N ARE COMMING HARD n before June 2020 .
#Changes in rules of appointment of judges is confirmed n reported by ARY NEWS , GEO NEWS , GNN NEWS , DUNYA NEWS e.t.c
( Sorry for grammatical mistakes )
# I will request admin / Moderator to not delete the thread if he dont want to discuss plz block the Comments only .
1 . We discussed alot of negative about Army but never appreciate their Sacrifices for example during War on terror , 2019 Feb stand off e.t.c
2 . Aitezaz Ahsan n many other said that Courts has no authority in COAS selection or reappoinment , its executive authority but they take it up by changing narratives when Petitioner said that i want to take it back Court said we converted it into Suo Moto ( on Suspension day ) n then other day Court said no it was not Suo Moto it was petition .
3 . Long thing Short today Signs of Clashes are becoming visible , Parliamentary committe of Appointing Judges , 4 from NA n 4 from Senate which includes PPP ,PTI , PML.N e.t.c members made amendment today about appoinment of Judges .
4 . High Courts , Supreme Court Judges now will be interviewed ( brace urself for those questions ) with power of rejection before Appointment or notification before that 8 Member committee of many parties of both houses .
5 . Now Supreme Court if reject it brace urself for a Situation which was under consideration after negative or Worse COAS tenure verdict on 28 Nov 2019 .
IN SHORT SUPREME COURT SHOULD FIRST FOCUS ON ITSELF N PENDING CASES , terrorists cases , Judges accountability because they did clash with Gen Musharraf , Zardari , Nawaz now Imran Khan as well , STORMS ARE COMMING N ARE COMMING HARD n before June 2020 .
#Changes in rules of appointment of judges is confirmed n reported by ARY NEWS , GEO NEWS , GNN NEWS , DUNYA NEWS e.t.c
( Sorry for grammatical mistakes )
Last edited:
Pakistan Ka Beta
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2019
- Messages
- 3,490
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
They sent COAS extention case to Parliament now they should get ready as well because Parliament will take care of slow and old laws of our Judicial system as well with no chance of excuse for them .
Last edited:
Amavous
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
پارلیمانی کمیٹی کا اجلاس، ججوں کی تقرری کیلئے انٹرویو لینے کی منظوری
اسلام آباد: (دنیا نیوز) پارلیمانی کمیٹی کسی بھی شخص کو طلب، مدعو یا انٹرویو کر سکے گی جبکہ جس امیدوار کی تقرری بطور جج زیر غور ہوگی، اس کا بھی انٹرویو کیا جا سکے گا۔
ججوں کی تقریری کیلئے تشکیل پارلیمانی کمیٹی کا اجلاس علی محمد خان کے زیر صدارت ہوا جس میں قواعد وضوابط میں ترامیم کی باضابطہ منظوری دی گئی۔
پارلیمانی کمیٹی کے اجلاس میں ہونے والی ترامیم کے مطابق اگر نامزد امیدوار جج انٹرویو کیلئے دستیاب نہیں ہوگا تو اس کی نامزدگی مسترد تصور ہوگی۔ نئے رولز میں مسترد شدہ کیسز کے بارے میں بھی طریقہ کار فراہم کر دیا گیا۔
نئے ترمیم شدہ مسودہ میں پارلیمانی کمیٹی کو سب کمیٹی تشکیل دینے کا بھی اختیار دیدیا گیا ہے۔ مسلسل تین اجلاسوں میں شرکت نہ کرنے والے اراکین کی رکنیت منسوخ کر دی جائے گی۔
کمیٹی کے آئندہ 4 دسمبر کو ہونے والے اجلاس میں نئے چیئرمین کا انتخاب کیا جائے گا۔ نئے منتخب ہونے والے چیئرمین 6 ماہ تک کمیٹی کی صدارت کریں گے۔
اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ کے ججز کی تقرری کیلئے نامزد امیدوار کو انٹرویو کیلئے بھی مدعو کرنے کا فیصلہ کیا گیا ہے۔
https://dunya.com.pk/index.php/dunya-headline/520967_1
Similar threads
