Restoration order for judiciary must be validated from parliament

PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Restoration order for judiciary must be validated from parliament

(35 posts)

msyedh
Member

March 16,2009 prime minister of pakistan order to restore all judges whom were dismissed November 3rd,2007 by Army chief and president,Mr musharf.
But so far this executive order is not validated from parliament. Government should bring this executive order in parliament to complete restoration process, restoration of judges will be illegal till parliament validate this order.
Also 17 amendment is required to be validated from democratic parliament. Validation during previous dictatorial is defacto because president wasin military uniform, still have all dictatorial powers, so 17 amendent was passed illaglly,like many other unconstitutional acts.It need to be validate from this democratic parliament. And until this amendment is validated from parliament, all pco judges including chief justice supreme court can not enjoy immunity for their passed unconstitutional acts and decisions during dictatorial rule of Musharaf. And without this validation restoration of judges will be illegal.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 17:31 #
Anonymous

An ordinary person in the street will tell you that this is just another nonsense.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 17:54 #
msyedh
Member

adnak
lagta ha aap Nawaz sharif key un lahori matwaloon mein se hein, jo Nawaz Sharif aur Noon league kee adliya se matlaq ,har sachi aur khari baat suntay hee aag bagola ho jatay hein. baghair puri tarah parahy aur samjay.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 18:41 #
bft1
Member

@ msyedh
Nonsense, 31st july decision: 3rd nov unconstitutional so judges not deposed n hence dint hav to be restored thru any order, they were always judges

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 18:59 #
msyedh
Member

bft1
supreme court can not make every wish and desire to be law and constitution, through interpretations and decisions, only parliament has authority to change law and constitution.
It is fact they were restored through this order, they were able to work in court because of that order and this order need to be validate, after restoration they can make many decisions in their own favor but that can not effect reality of this restoration order.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 19:18 #
Anonymous

msyedh

Sorry to say that you are 100% wrong. I do not belong to any of the Muslim Leagues. I criticse what gives me the feeling that it wrong, may it be from any party. For example, Prime Minister met and dined with the Chief Justice which is commendable move. I wish positive outcome after that meeting may come.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 19:40 #
skunkk
Member

It was a political statement, however, the de facto recognition given by SC to dogar courts administrative acts will need to be validated. Supreme Court cannot validated any extra-constitutional acts that includes de facto recognition.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 20:16 #
uthoyay
Member

@msyedh,

Your statement that the restoration requires validation is either very childish or extreme stupid:

- When all judges were removed through some sort of "executive order", the 2/3rd parliament did not approve it. How come the removal of judges become possible without parliament and restoration of judges requires parliament?

- The executive order was just a "face saving" exercise by PPP at time of long march, otherwise judges would have gone sitting anyway with or without executive order on the climax of long march by the power of Pakistani Nation. PPP just did it to take stupid credit of restoring judges when they were about to be crushed by the people of Pakistan on 16th March.

- If you see all talk shows of last 2 days, most senior PPP members are saying that judges are for good restored and nothing required anymore.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 21:14 #
uthoyay
Member

BTW, the actual meaning of the "Executive Order" from PM/President was:

"listen Dogar ... please get lost .. and Listen Police .. don't stop the real judges entering their offices" .. otherwise the millions of people will enter Islamabad and crush us :-)

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 21:18 #
Anonymous

msyedh

Perhaps your argument is already a dead horse, as seen with latest developments.

Posted 2 years ago on 16 Feb 2010 21:20 #
bft1
Member

@msyedh
This is not constitution n there is law made by judiciary ie common law, nov 3rd emergency was proclaimed by coas hence not valid. Uve defeated ur own argument by stating that parl makes law n const since parl neva ratified nov 3 actions hence judges were neva deposed.

Posted 2 years ago on 17 Feb 2010 8:39 #
Beenai
Moderator

its nothing but a childish move of present Govt ...
to say ;agar humko nahin khelnay do gay ,tu hum bhi tumko nahin khalny dayen gay ....

now PM is trying to make it over ...

Posted 2 years ago on 17 Feb 2010 9:31 #
msyedh
Member

We welcome consultation process and out come of this process, between chief justice of pakistan and prime minister of pakistan, we hope tension will be defused between two institutions of Pakistan.
They should solve all legal and constitutional problems, staying in their limits, hope soon restoration order for judiciary and 17 amendment will be validated in parliament or necessary amendment will be made through constitutional committee.

Posted 2 years ago on 17 Feb 2010 15:51 #
bft1
Member

@msyedh
Restoration duznt have to be validated since nov 3 was never validated so they were never removed

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 4:12 #
Beenai
Moderator

when PM of the country is not sure about the constitutional obligations ,how can we ???

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 4:31 #
toamin
member

corrupt zardari + cunning gillani + ghaddaar kiyani

khuda nay inkay naseeb may zilat-o-ruswayee likh dee hay -inshAllah

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 9:53 #
Anti Pakistan
Member

The whole system is corrupt.

Jackal can't find the sheep of his own choice. The sheep are too intelligent supported by Jews lobby.

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:00 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

Why hasn't the parliament validated restoration of judges thus far ? *ANGRY*

What! the heck! has parliament been doing to-date ?

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:07 #
Beenai
Moderator

@Jackal ,
stop posting irrelevant posts ...

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:07 #
bft1
Member

@ hariskhan
For the 10th time....endorsement of parl is not required coz the 3rd nov actions were not endorsed hence they were illegal n judges were never deposed. It was also held by SC in the 3 nov case that the emergency was illegal n so were all its repurcusion hence judges were never deposed.

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:13 #
hariskhan
member

Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

@bft1: Ok, great!.

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:15 #
rjvohra
Member

this statement was politically motivated pm is trying to reply ch nisar

but the nest day he said < ghaltiyan to her kissi se ho jati hai >
in these words he takes back his statement
b coz it was wrong

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 10:23 #
msyedh
Member

well, it is fact that these judges were removed 3 november 2007 and they were restored 16 march 2009 through the executive order, we respect supreme court but they can not deny facts. they can make order or decisions to change present or future situations but they can not change factual past with their orders or decisions.

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 18:29 #
bft1
Member

@msyedh
Answer this: u saw everythin has to be endorsed by parl so wen their removal was not endorsed by parl they need not be restored.
These are legal issues n arent as simple as u say 'facts'.....dogar was only de facto cj wile iftikhar was de jure so ur facts fal flat on their face due to legal principles

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 19:20 #
bft1
Member

il give u an example now theres a principle that the parliament is supreme so if the parl declares u a eunuch then even if u produce medical or any other evidence in the world ud stil be one. See facts becum irrelevant the same way the SC has authority to change facts in certain maters, u seem to hav a keen interest in legal maters i advise u to get a degree n if u need coaching id be pleased to be at ur service til then stop makin urself look like a fool.

Posted 2 years ago on 18 Feb 2010 19:26 #
msyedh
Member

bft1
Brother first of all, thanx for offering to coach me, inshallah i will take advantage from this offer when i need it.
i am sorry to make you upset on this issue, but i really believe, this issue is not simple. i am going to explain you, why? in next messages.

Posted 2 years ago on 20 Feb 2010 1:57 #
msyedh
Member

bft1
Brother, I agree 3 November 2007 removal of judiciary was illegal and unconstitutional, but don't forget that appointments of chief justice iftikhar and other judges since 12 Oct 1999 to 3 November 2007 was unconstitutional too.
Mr Mushraf was uniformed commonder in chief of army and unconstitutional president of pakistan by force, he did not have constitutional authority to appoint these judges, he attained unconstitutional authority from pco supreme court through illegal and unconstitutional decision. Supreme court did not have power to validate his marshal law and give him constitutional authorities.
So appointments for judges during that period was same illegal act as removal of judiciary 3 November 2007. Mursharf did not have any legitimate constitutional authority to appoint or remove any judge. This judiciary was defacto judiciary which was running judicial system before 3 November 2007.
But Now we have democratic government, this government can not restore or validate that illegal appointments which were made illegally and unconstitutionally by dictator Mursharf.
To restore these judges we must have to validate their original appointments and to do that we have to validate 17 amendment through democratic parliament. Validation of 17 amendment during dictatorial rule was unconstitutional because it was signed by dictator Mushraf. He did not have legitimate constitutional authority to sign that amendment.

Posted 2 years ago on 20 Feb 2010 2:56 #
msyedh
Member

bft1
This restoration of judiciary will be illegal till parliament validate this restoration, original appointments and 17 amendment.

Posted 2 years ago on 20 Feb 2010 3:06 #
bft1
Member

hahaha wrong again, the last parliament 'validated' musharrafs martial law.
17th amendment needs validation? R u in ur rite senses? its called an amendment only after validation by parliament.

Posted 2 years ago on 20 Feb 2010 5:35 #
bft1
Member

the parliament validated mush's powers thru LFO 17th amendment thanx to ji n jui who were bribed n suported the amendment w/o their suport it cudnt be passed.
Read this carefully very carefully: all of musharaf actions were ratified except the nov 3rd action n that is y he only be tried in the nov 3rd case, all his other actions were declared legal by parl. The only action that wasnt: nov 3rd hence judges appointment was made valid under lfo but removal of 3rd was not validated hence judges never removed thank u!

Posted 2 years ago on 20 Feb 2010 5:39 #
msyedh1
Member

bft1
17 amendment/LFO does not have constitutional legitimacy because it was signed by dictator,who was still in uniform, and he attained powers from unconstitutional decisionof pco supreme court. so with signing of dictator mursharf,17 amendment is invalid. and it need validation from this democratic parliament, till that this judiciary is working as defacto judiciary, restoration of judiciary is invalid without validatioin of their original appointments.

Posted 2 years ago on 21 Feb 2010 19:49 #
bft1
Member

bhai isi liye keh raha hu aap law kar len, the 17th amendment is valid coz of the simple working of the doctrine of legal positivism.

Posted 2 years ago on 21 Feb 2010 20:31 #
msyedh1
Member

bft1
Are you trying to justify(Nazria Zaroorat) as telling here that all unconstitutinal acts of dictator were legal because of doctrine of legal positivism?
Doctrine of legal positivism can be used only, where law is not clear, but it can not be used against written constitution, if it is used against constitution of pakistan then it will be act of high treason, not doctrine of legal positivism.

Posted 2 years ago on 21 Feb 2010 21:19 #
bft1
Member

hahaha mere bhai legal positivism can be used only where law is clear n written
Its not nazria zarurat, nazria zarurat is doctrine of necessity

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Feb 2010 4:09 #
Beenai
Moderator

it was nothing but a childish act of threatening from PM to CJ and judiciary...it was nothing to do with constitution.

PM himself ,back out his flawed statement,the very next day.

Posted 2 years ago on 22 Feb 2010 4:31 #