Law Changed in 24 Hours. Punjab Assembly Proceeding Can't be Challenged in Courts: Lahore High Court Office

[That Guy]

You do understand the difference of substantive and procedural dealing?
What SC gave was wholly under tge umbrella of law, if you had taken the time to read the document published by SC. Then you wouldn't be spewing blatant lies on a public forum

If you yourself took the time to read it, you'd understand how bullshit that is.

Substantive and procedural are basically the same thing when it comes to this issue.

The Deputy speaker dismissed the motion, which is procedural. The fact that the LHC has basically sided with what everyone was saying (a day after the SC verdict no less) is enough evidence to shut the SC's verdict down.

The SC didn't argue on the reasoning, so your argument of what you seem to think is substantive simply doesn't apply. They didn't say what the deputy speaker said is wrong, they said him dismissing the motion (procedural) is unconstitutional, a verdict which is also unconstitutional itself according to article 69(1).

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

It is responsibility of Every Pakistani to spread the reality

• President of Pakistan has announced elections in 90 days (83 days left now)
• National Assemblies have been dissolved

The TV channels are collaborating with foreign views and spreading fake news about powers of Supreme court

The objective is to confuse , enough people while foreign objective of government change is attained

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

elections will NOT be held in 83 days it will take between 6 months and 5 years.

BTW. you should use a correct location flag

Nope President of Pakistan and Constitution of Pakistan stated 90 days if ECP does not holds elections they are breaking law of Pakistan

Since it is 83 Days left I suggest ECP start working harder

 

[PakSarZameen47]

Nope President of Pakistan and Constitution of Pakistan stated 90 days if ECP does not holds elections they are breaking law of Pakistan

Since it is 83 Days left I suggest ECP start working

This whole fiasco is very confusing. Are they trying to misinform the public? And why? I don't know what to believe anymore

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

This should have been SC verdict but we all know how institutions in banana republic do. Parliament is supreme but here army and post 2010 courts act like mai baap. And on top of that all IK did was dissolve assembly and call for new election. Which is acceptable to any opposition all over the world but not in Pakistan. They want time to change law that benefit their family in corruption cases, remove overseas vote etc

 

[Sugarcane]

Mother f**s are sitting in courts. Anyone thinking that these haram ka pilllas doing anything to uphold the justice is fool.

 

[Mav3rick]

The fact that the the LHC sides with my argument is more than enough evidence.

The Law is clear.

Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)
69. (1) The validity of any proceedings in 1 [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of 1 [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 1
[Majlis- e-Shoora (Parliament)], shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

(3) In this Article, 1 [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] has the same meaning as in Article 66

XxxX

Actually read the constitution before opening your mouth. Why do you think there are so many lawyers that are outraged by the SC decision?

The Supreme Court violated Article 69(1) of the Constitution.

Now every idiot can challenge any decision made by the speaker and deputy speaker in the future by directly going to the SC, and the SC would have no choice but to hear them out due to this idiotic decision.

Article 69(1) exists for a very good reason.

If Article 69 was indeed this absolute then the Government's own highest law officer, the Attorney General, would have defended the Deputy Speaker's Action. Whereas, the AG clearly stated that he could not defend the actions of the DS which also imply how unconstitutional they were.

Also, how can any one have absolute powers without check and balance? What the DS did was unconstitutional and the whole world knows it; there was no investigation on the matter and the DS arbitrarily decided to brand 197 members of the Parliament as traitors! What gave him the right or authority to do that?

Matter of fact, if Article 69 is indeed absolute then the entire process of vote of no-confidence is rendered useless as the Speaker and DS are always from the Treasury and they would never allow voting against their own party.

Finally, let me ask you this, who will defend the constitution and law within the Parliament if the Treasury/Speaker/DS etc., violate it?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

If Article 69 was indeed this absolute then the Government's own highest law officer, the Attorney General, would have defended the Deputy Speaker's Action. Whereas, the AG clearly stated that he could not defend the actions of the DS which also imply how unconstitutional they were.

Also, how can any one have absolute powers without check and balance? What the DS did was unconstitutional and the whole world knows it; there was no investigation on the matter and the DS arbitrarily decided to brand 197 members of the Parliament as traitors! What gave him the right or authority to do that?

Matter of fact, if Article 69 is indeed absolute then the entire process of vote of no-confidence is rendered useless as the Speaker and DS are always from the Treasury and they would never allow voting against their own party.

Finally, let me ask you this, who will defend the constitution and law within the Parliament if the Treasury/Speaker/DS etc., violate it?

Pakistan has not seen a choor ka tola like PDM before

 

[That Guy]

If Article 69 was indeed this absolute then the Government's own highest law officer, the Attorney General, would have defended the Deputy Speaker's Action. Whereas, the AG clearly stated that he could not defend the actions of the DS which also imply how unconstitutional they were.

Also, how can any one have absolute powers without check and balance? What the DS did was unconstitutional and the whole world knows it; there was no investigation on the matter and the DS arbitrarily decided to brand 197 members of the Parliament as traitors! What gave him the right or authority to do that?

Matter of fact, if Article 69 is indeed absolute then the entire process of vote of no-confidence is rendered useless as the Speaker and DS are always from the Treasury and they would never allow voting against their own party.

Finally, let me ask you this, who will defend the constitution and law within the Parliament if the Treasury/Speaker/DS etc., violate it?

No one said that the speaker has unlimited power. Rather, I said that the courts have zero authority over parliamentary procedures as dictated by article 69, which is a fact.

Don't argue with me, just because you don't like your country's own constitution.

In case of violations, the senate and the Parliament can open hearings into the actions of the Speaker.

 

[Mav3rick]

No one said that the speaker has unlimited power. Rather, I said that the courts have zero authority over parliamentary procedures as dictated by article 69, which is a fact.

Don't argue with me, just because you don't like your country's own constitution.

In case of violations, the senate and the Parliament can open hearings into the actions of the Speaker.

Well, the incumbent Chief Justice and 4 other Justices of the Supreme Court along with the highest law officer of Imran's Government believe otherwise; and they outrank all of us in matters of the Court and interpretation of the constitution!

 

[That Guy]

Well, the incumbent Chief Justice and 4 other Justices of the Supreme Court along with the highest law officer of Imran's Government believe otherwise; and they outrank all of us in matters of the Court and interpretation of the constitution!

Outrank doesn't mean right, and that's your problem. Instead of looking at reality, you're instead relying on something that is demonstrably false, because someone of higher authority said so.

 

[Mav3rick]

Outrank doesn't mean right, and that's your problem. Instead of looking at reality, you're instead relying on something that is demonstrably false, because someone of higher authority said so.

On the contrary, I have absolute faith that the Supreme Court is the highest entity entrusted and empowered to provide justice. If a parliamentary act is in contrast to the constitution then the Supreme Court is legally empowered to step in and correct the course; in other words, they are not empowered to step-in for any parliamentary procedure unless it is unconstitutional. In absence of this power, the ruling party would run amuck without any credible challenge. This is also proven with the fact that addition, amendment etc. to the constitution by parliament can also be reviewed, and where necessary, struck down by the Courts........PECA is a prime example.

 

[That Guy]

On the contrary, I have absolute faith that the Supreme Court is the highest entity entrusted and empowered to provide justice. If a parliamentary act is in contrast to the constitution then the Supreme Court is legally empowered to step in and correct the course; in other words, they are not empowered to step-in for any parliamentary procedure unless it is unconstitutional. In absence of this power, the ruling party would run amuck without any credible challenge. This is also proven with the fact that addition, amendment etc. to the constitution by parliament can also be reviewed, and where necessary, struck down by the Courts........PECA is a prime example.

"If a parliamentary act is in contrast to the constitution then the Supreme Court is legally empowered to step in and correct the course; in other words, they are not empowered to step-in for any parliamentary procedure unless it is unconstitutional"

Is the issue, everything else you said is just fluff.

The constitution strictly forbids the courts from interfering with matter is the parliment, actually read article 69(1), before opening your mouth further.

You're talking out of your ***, because you got the verdict you hope for. If this was the other way around, you'd condemn the SC.

This isn't a debate, you aren't being clever. Facts remain facts.

 

[ARMalik]

Fellows don't fall for charade -- LHC is part of the Establishment, and all they are trying to do is to cover they behind. LHC IS IN PANIC MODE !!!!! Which means Bajwa and his corrupt cronies are in PANIC MODE !!! And it is not even 24 HOURS since the protests started !!