In a village in Punjab, a Panchayat was convened to resolve a problem and some dignitaries of the village were called in this Panchayat. The arguments of the parties on the issue were heard and these arguments continued for several hours. The people of the village also left all their work and came to see the proceedings of this panchayat. He hoped that the Panchayat would decide in favor of someone today. After listening to the arguments for several hours, the Sarpanch sitting in the Panchayat called the parties together and, turning his hand on his bald head, addressed both of them and said in Punjabi, 'Gul tehadee vi thuk eh te kendan ov choto nain' (Batt aap ki bhi). ok and say they are not lying either).
This is what happened in the Supreme Court on Monday during the hearing of petitions against the Practice and Procedure Act. The new Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, after taking the oath of office on Sunday, apparently decided for the first time that the notice of ex parte. The injunction issued by the former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial against the Practice and Procedure Act passed by the Parliament regarding the authority of the Chief Justice should be removed. An eight-member bench headed by former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial had issued an injunction against this law. Regarding this, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa had written a letter to the then Chief Justice that until the decision regarding the constitution of the bench is taken, he will not be a part of any bench. For the first time in the judicial history, the proceedings of the full court were seen on TV and 15 judges present in the Supreme Court participated in this full court.
The court proceedings were shown on state-run TV for more than six hours. When the hearing of petitions against this law began, Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa said that some judges had already heard the case. And some judges felt that petitions against this law should be heard by new judges, so a full bench has been constituted. When the petitioner's lawyer Khawaja Tariq Rahim started making arguments, the court asked him to read the law. . When he started reading the law, some judge from the fifteen-member bench would ask him a question.
Then whenever Khawaja Tariq Rahim started to answer it, the Chief Justice would stop him and say that you should go read this law and ask your junior to write down the questions asked by the judges and then answer it later. It is very rare in judicial proceedings that if a junior judge asks a question to an argumentative lawyer, the senior judge asks him to continue his arguments and asks his junior to answer the questions asked by the bench. Write it down. During the arguments of Khawaja Tariq Rahim, the questions that were asked by the bench, especially the junior judges, those judges did not forget to tell their juniors to note down this question. One more. Petitioner Imtiaz Siddiqui was called to present arguments. He termed this law as an interference in judicial matters and said that Parliament cannot legislate to control the Judiciary. Imtiaz Siddiqui was also treated in the same way during the arguments. When he said, "If you say so, I will start reading the detailed judgment (of the previous one)," the Chief Justice replied, "No, this is not the job of a lawyer." A lawyer's job is to point out. Not that I start reading. Don't scare us. At one point, the Chief Justice expressed anger at his arguments and said, "Please, I will not allow such arguments in front of the Supreme Court." Addressing him, he said, 'If you are going to make fun of me, I will not give arguments. Be patient to listen to my arguments.' After this reply of the lawyer, the Chief Justice said 'It will be your choice' but for some time no question was asked by the bench.
At one point, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who was present in the bench, addressed the petitioner's lawyer and said, 'If this law is added to the rolls of the Supreme Court by seventeen judges, is it right and if Parliament does it, then it is wrong?' When the Attorney General was called for arguments, he objected to the admissibility of these petitions and also said that Parliament has the power to legislate. Justice Muneeb Akhtar on the bench, who is considered by a section of lawyers to be a sympathizer of former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, said that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental right and how Parliament can legislate a right of appeal against a judicial order. The Chief Justice intervened and said that the judges did not sit for discussion among themselves. He said that not liking the law and being unconstitutional are two different things. He said that I may not like many laws but I have sworn to implement them. BBC Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa has said. That they will constitute the benches in consultation with two senior judges, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan. During the arguments of the petitioners and the Attorney General, two judges, whom lawyers consider to be like-minded of the current Chief Justice, namely Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minullah, continued to fire questions while former Chief Justice Umar Atta responded. Judges Justice Ejazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, who are considered like-minded to Bandyal, also kept asking him questions about his position. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar were part of the eight-member bench that issued an injunction against the Act. At one point, Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked the Attorney General if the future Parliament amends the Act. Then what will happen, the Chief Justice replied that 'to question the work that has not been done yet.' Justice Muneeb Akhtar was disgusted by this. He could not say anything to the Chief Justice, but he addressed the Attorney General and said that 'his question is not based on assumptions and he stands by his question and the Attorney General has to answer it.' Tass had to go abroad on the issue of the treaty, so he cut short the arguments. The court was adjourned twice during the hearing of these petitions. After the second adjournment, when all the judges gathered, the Chief Justice said that he had tried to pronounce the verdict on the petitions against the Act today, but it did not happen. However, he said that he would form the benches in consultation with two senior judges, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan. Thus, the court adjourned the hearing of these applications till October 3. After the Order of the Day, a group of lawyers say that the injunction granted by an eight-judge bench headed by former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial against the Practice and Procedure Act has practically lapsed as the law itself It has been said that the Chief Justice will constitute the bench after consultation with two senior judges and the current Chief Justice has also said the same. While the second faction of lawyers is of the opinion that since the order of the day did not ask for the removal of the injunction, the decision of the eight-member bench is still upheld. They thought they were winning.
إرسال تعليق