The Pakistani Spectator

A writ petition has been filed in Islamabad High Court against restoration of deposed judges through parliament on Thursday.

Molvi Iqbal Haider filed petition under article 199 of the constitution in which speaker, deputy speaker national assembly and law secretary have been made parties.

The filed petition maintains that matters related to judges could not be tabled in the parliament and that apex court should direct National Assembly Speaker, Deputy Speaker not to present resolution on the issue.

The petition stated that any matter related to judges should not be presented in parliament under article number 68 and 69 of constitution.
Also, it would be violation of Supreme Court’s decision that was formed after November 3. The decision declared PCO and removal of judges legal.

The court will start hearing of petition from tomorrow. Profile of subject lawyer Mr Molvi Iqbal Haider, formerly, known as Iqbal Haider, resident of Karachi ,a free lancer advocate known since last two decade by virtue of his pro bono publico appearance in apex courts. Although professionally incompetent and lethargic, but has been extensively utilized, in the manner of such services, by many, competent high profile lawyers, bureaucracy, governments, and motive base NGO’s. Although there is nothing in the profile of subject lawyer to report on professional ground but, since his appearance on platform of issues that is owned by people is the point of concerned, as the person breaches the opinion of public and stands on the same platform ,of public, but in favor of the desirer. In other words his reactions are as per desire of the establishment and backing and expression, are the plea of the government, so to info and explain in words, that considerate and attentive opinion be taken before giving the judgment. His services in this regards are as and in lieu of the middle man and has multiple outlets and doors to chanellize things at the desire of the desirer.

Motive and modus operandi of subject lawyer profile disclosure, was to cease discussion that actions and initiative to halt and hold, the issue of judiciary have been initiated by the establishment.

In this regard I have tried to float, resultant outcome of possible judgment as per constitutional amendment and restriction and cuffing of parliament to exercise any power, extra constitutionally, in this regard.

Power and authority of the apex courts

Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law (article 199 clause1)

(a) On the application of any aggrieved party make an order-

(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do ; or

(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or

(c) on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person or authority, including any Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II.

Subject to the Constitution, the right to move a High Court for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II shall not be abridged. (Article 199 clause 2)

(b) The making of an interim order would have the effect of prejudicing or interfering with the carrying out of a public work or of otherwise being harmful.

(5) In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,- “person” includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan; and

Restriction, on discussion in Majlis-e-Shoora, (Parliament)

No discussion shall take place in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties. (article68)

The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure. (Article 69 clause 1) No officer or member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers. (Article 69, cause2)In this Article, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has the same meaning as in Article 66. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) (article 69 clause 3)

Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora

Person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), (article 63clause 1A), if

(a) He is of unsound mind and has been so declared by a competent court; or

(b) He is an undischarged insolvent; or

(g) he is propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the Ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan; or

(h) He has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force; or (1)

(l) he is found guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice under any law for the time being in force, unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date on which that order takes effect; or

(m) He has been convicted under section 7 of the Political Parties Act, 1962 (III of 1962), unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of such conviction; or If any question arises ‘whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall, within thirty days from raising of such question refer the question to the Chief Election Commissioner.] 4[(2)Where a question is referred to the Chief Election Commissioner under clause (2), he shall lay such question before the Election Commission which shall give its decision thereon not later than three months from its receipt by the Chief Election Commissioner.] 1[(3)

Last 5 posts by Dr Razahaider

• Appendicitis, A Surgical Dilemma - October 23rd, 2008
• Theory of Evolution, a Pre-School Concept - October 19th, 2008
• Unnatural Offense or Behavioral Deviation - October 11th, 2008
• I shall need you My Son - September 19th, 2008
• Come on and Get Me - September 11th, 2008