ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Friday wondered parliament we can expect the adoption of “self-serving legislation” when in “a transitional period and elections must be held.”
“We are the guardians of Constitution and it’s not a joyful enterprise for courts to make laws instead or show over activism. But we must protect the Constitution, the constitutional mechanism and rule of law,” CJP noted.
Observation came while listening of a challenge Tehreek-e-Insaf Pakistan Chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan through his counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed, latest amendments made to the National Accountability Act (NAO).
Led by the CJP, a three-judge Supreme Court bench The hearing panel includes Judge Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Judge Syed Mansour Ali Shah as other members.
SC considers Imran’s petition against changes in the NAO; state lawyer says the courts should not interfere in political disputes
“This is not ordinary times but exceptional times where is the former government party did not fulfill his duties, as he boycotted out of in parliament while the beneficiaries amended the laws,” CJP regretted.
Judge Shah wondered if the trial would should worry about political temperature outside and asked in what forum people should approach to seeking remedies if they were upset in the NAO case was completely canceled in future.
Older counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan, who appeared on on behalf of of the federal government responded by citing that the United States Supreme Court has always followed latest election resultsmean standing with in government in power in deciding constitutional cases.
“More burden on courts
In a society or country where the parliamentary process did not work properly and when fundamental rights were suspended, the burden was great. on courts, but if the democratic and constitutional order functioned smoothly, counsel claimed.
He brought a number of examples show that the Supreme Court in USA had changed his views over of the year on questions like death sentence, abortion and in flag salute event, saying resolution of contradictions should always be limited to parliamentary forums instead of letting them decide on streets.
Read: Law on NAB changes can “endorse” PML-N leaders
“We are conscious of in fact”, the CJP noted, adding that the court should not to climb into the political jungle “but we also must take into account view basic guarantees to citizens like due process, fair trial and fairness in in criminal judicial process”.
Court postponed further proceedings until September 1, when Khawaja Haris said that he had recovered from Covid only the other day and therefore could not submit a short statement. in time.
Correct forum
Answering the questions in petition, Makhdoom Ali Khan in the statement explains that the forum for acceptance or opposition to acceptance of the charter was parliament. Politicians may succeed or fail in in parliament in the pursuit of their goals, and those who are disappointed could turn to the people, he said, adding that it was their right, but a means for they had no offense with courts.
counsel emphasized that the courts can judge the constitutionality of tired, but could not test charter on criteria of a certain political outlook, or a moral point of view, or a philosophical approach.
He argued that if you follow the route proposed petitioner would lead straight into the political thicket, adding that [courts should] always resist or avoid be dragged into in such disputes.
counsel emphasized that petitioner not enough locus standi and bona fide for move real petition since amendment of similar nature we made through the sacraments in NAO during the petitioner term how prime minister. In this way, clear that this petition does not raise constitutional, but political issues, counsel said, especially when the supreme court has repeatedly said it does not decide political issues.
He argued that the law could not be repealed down on the foundation of principles of policy resolution on objectives and Article 2A of constitution, especially when the petition aims to give the impression that the offense of corruption was abolished by an amendment that is wrong and that the legislative purpose clear in amendments.
Published in Dawn, August 20, 2022
