thanks for the quotation regarding the jurisdiction of the SC. I can see where your point of view is coming from. i agree with most of wat you are saying except that in my understanding the discussion never really took place on the article under which the petition was filed. Rather SC was most interested in questioning as to what right does Dr. Qadri has to interfere in the process. And this is what they have termed as the 'Locus standi' in the concerned case.
If you read the following article, you will get the feel of what I am saying. The discussion is more about proving Dr. Qadri's sincerity; his right to file a petition of such nature; why is filing it when no one else has filed it; he declares himself Canadian rather than Pakistani when outside Pak; and, why has he returned to Pakistan all of a sudden?
The only question which seem relevant and is of legal nature is the one which questions his right to file a petition of such nature. All the other questions seems very opinionated to me rather than based on any legal grounds.
Now lets agree for the sake of it that the verdict is legitimate but im finding it terribly hard to deny that this was a very unimpressive show from both sides and lacked professionalism.
Court casts away Qadri
I can understand your point of view, apparently many overseas Pakistanis are hurt by the remarks. But if you see the verdict from other perspectives you'll find it well justified.
Let me extend a valid point, a petition technically speaking goes through different phases. Preliminary examination of the petition by registrar SC, if he finds it flawed or seeking something out of the jurisdiction of SC he rejects it. If everything is fine as it is in most of the cases the petition makes it to the bench for hearing.
Bench judges a petition on two different levels 1) Sustainability 2) Merits. Before proceeding to the merits, bench judges whether the petition is sustainable or not. In order to make it sustainable the petitioner/lawyer is obliged to prove his/her valid locus standi, his/her bona fides are also judged.
Please make a note of this: TuQ asked the court to order reconstitution of the EC by exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under article 184 (3). This article allows SC to pass an order using its discretionary powers if the matter is about public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. Mr. Qadri was asked how exactly constitution of EC affected his fundamental rights? He could not answer. SC asked where was he for two years, why didn't he challenge EC immediately after its formulation, why at eleventh hour? He again remained mum. If the matter was about public interest then why he (Qadri) as a dual national, who had arrived recently after 6 years, so keen about it - no Pakistani (single national) out of 180 million population ever approached SC in this regard! SC had serious reservations on his bona fides. In the matters of public interest SC judges bona fides very strictly for such matters are very sensitive. The responsibility of the courts gets double when a dual national (bound to two allegiances) is a petitioner.
Again, please make a note TuQ petition was not an ordinary one, it was a constitutional petition. He questioned an institution which is purely based on the constitution of the country. 26 parties now that means a huge representation of the people of Pakistan took 9 months to draft the bill (20th amendment) that defines and formulate ECP.
Lets examine the
purpose if the verdict was given in the favor of TuQ. He asked about the reconstitution of the EC, according to him procedure for the appointment of four provincial members of EC, defined in the constitution, was not followed. Since he didn't question eligibility of the members or EC as a whole so following possible verdicts could have shown up.
1) SC could have ordered reconstitution of the EC through proper procedure. Since members were unquestioned therefore government and opposition would have reappointed very same members again. Now anything useful here?
2) SC could have asked the government to follow the procedure keeping members in. Anything useful here?
3) SC could have condone the irregularity. Anything useful here?
4) SC could have referred the case to high court. Because of the long procedure TuQ never wanted to go to high court.
5) SC could have rejected the petition... Exactly same happened.
Anything other than hampering impending elections???? TuQ intentions are malafide and he deserves scorns!
