On Monday, the judge of the Supreme Court Shogunate Baka requested a lawyer from Kajipae Sa Judge, who faced the president's statement to clarify the executive's authority to conduct an investigation of a standing court judge through a forum not stipulated by law.
Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah also asks Muneer A. Malik to wonder if an individual has the right to collect evidence for a judge under the law in which the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) collected material used as a reference for Isa. I did. Whether the judge enjoyed the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution.
Judge Shah also advised that during the proceedings against the judges, the Supreme Court of Justice (SJC) lifted the exemption under Article 248 of the Constitution to move against the actions of the president to refer to the council. .
However, Judge Umar Ata Bandial, who presides over the 10 tribunals, recalls that ARU was established for foreign affairs against the backdrop of a 2018 Supreme Court order. The court was hearing a series of petitions raising the President's comment on the Supreme Court Justice.
Attorney Muneer Malik answers questions
When the court raises the matter on Tuesday. However, he mentioned Article 248 of the Constitution, which provided exemptions to the president, prime minister, governor, governor and minister. He insisted on keeping in mind the constitution's framework to protect the actions taken by the secretariat owners within the framework of the constitution.
It was recommended that such immunity is not intended to protect individual behavior as a result of illegal, unlawful or insulting behavior. He cited the case of Zahoor Ellahi vs. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1975, when it was ruled that immunity could not be extended to illegal or unconstitutional acts.
Judge Muneeb Akhtar
However, bench member Judge Muneeb Akhtar recalled that in the 2010 Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry case, shocking, concrete cases and direct and personal charges were determined by the Supreme Court of Justice at the time in his petition filed with the Supreme Court. This charge was later found to be correct after analysis by the Pool Court.
The lawyer also said that Akhtar judges should cite specific claims to explain the factual disagreements between the president and the prime minister. However, the charges raised by the petitioner in the current petition are inherently common, and the judge added that if he spoke about himself, he was more interested in a particular case in order to establish Malawi's claims.
The lawyer stressed that immunity under section 248 is virtually limited, and that immunity under constitutional provisions disappeared when distrust of laws and facts subsided. Explaining further, he said in the Iftikhar Chaudhry case that the claims to Malafide are the same, but the methods are different.
Justice Baqar said
The methodology is different, but the incidental purposes of the Iftikhar Chaudhry case and the Isa judge case were the same. The lawyer gave a positive answer and, on the advice of the prime minister, said the president acted with the constitution and showed distrust in the law. Of course, the President did not apply his ideas before sending a reference to the SJC, so he did not perform his duties under the Constitution.
But Justice Akhtar could be seen in other ways, the president said after the Prime Minister's summary, he decided to apply his ideas and send a reference. The lawyer cited Isa's preliminary response to the SJC and explained that the president did not give an independent opinion on the advice of the prime minister.
He added that one of the petitioner's petitions did not conduct any investigation before the president applied his idea to mention the mention of the SJC.
A Malik spokesman said
SJC is simply a domestic fact-finding forum for investigating the judge's behavior, but there is no jurisdiction to mention the president again, ask about the president's actions or go to step 1. The Iftikhar Chaudhry case involved his instructions to file a complaint before the president, collect data, gather the opinions of the president, and submit the documents.
Judge Sajad Ali Shah ruled that the lawyer was out of the scope of Article 211 of the Constitution by the lawyer's pen. At the first stage, the vertex court has jurisdiction to arbitrate, but because it is not a court, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the SJC. SJC reports are inherently recommendations and cannot declare the rights of the parties or issue laws.
The SJC also advised that the reference could not be canceled on the basis of bad luck. Judge Bandial has observed that a lawsuit before SJC can be stopped at any time by challenging all mention of the vertex court. Judge Baqar wondered if the proceedings before the SJC could be appealed in the vertex court after the show-cause notice was issued.
0 comments: