strike down laws passed by parliament

strike down laws passed by parliament

ISLAMABAD: The cha­l­l­enge to amendments to the accountability law by

former prime minister Imran Khan “is not a case that deserves to be

answ­ered”, the government’s lawyer told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and argued that the courts should find reasons to

reconcile the law with the Constitution instead of just striking it down.

A three-member Sup­reme Court bench,

led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Ban dial, took up the petition filed by the

PTI chairman against the amendments introduced by the current government last year.

Senior counsel Makh­doom Ali Khan, representing the federal governm­ent, began his argument dur­ing a Tuesday hearing. “If I may be more courageous enough to say, there is no case to answer,” he argued.

He said that when the courts looked at a statute whose constitutionality

and if there was any disconnect, reconcile it with the Constitution instead of just striking it down.

the court shifted the entire burden on the petitioner to

justify that the law or any amendment was uncons­titutional and illegal.

Under Article 203(D) of the Constitution, it is only the Federal Shariat Court that,

according to the counsel, could declare any statute repugnant to the injunctions of Islam

after examining the same, but this power of declaw.

The judiciary didn’t have any judicial power in this respect, the counsel said,

During the hearing, Justice Bandial wondered how many members of the parliament passed the present amendments to the NAB law. To this, the counsel stated that he would inform the court about the exact number on Wednesday (today).

When the counsel compared the oath of office of the parlia­mentarians with the judges,

Justice Ijaza Ahsan reminded that the oath of the member demand

to exercise his functions in accordance with the Constitution but also in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity,

well-being and prosperity of Pakistan.

will it not violate the oath,” Justice Ahsan wondered.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, however, observed that the absence of words

in the oath of the judges, like the well-being and prosperity of the people,

was because when the court decided a case,

it did not consider the prosperity of the people rather decided in accordance with the constitution.

Justice Bandial observed that the court interpreted the law in a way that

it should not serve the private interest by overriding the interest of the people.

However, the counsel emphasized that the courts interfered only when the parliament or the executive had crossed red lines,

“but when there is an amber light, the judiciary looks the other way

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *