In the Faizabad dharna case, the federal government, Election Commission and PTI have also decided to withdraw the review petition, on which the Chief Justice has said that why are all people so scared? Punishment Punishment Later admit that the order to withdraw the application came from above, tell the truth and don’t play with us.
The Federation had filed a review petition against the Faizabad sit-in case verdict by the Ministry of Defence, while earlier IB and Pemra had also withdrawn their review petitions.
When the Faizabad dharna case hearing began before a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, the Election Commission decided to withdraw the petition. Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minullah are included in the bench.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked that today the nine revision petitions are being heard, first make all the petitioners appear.
The lawyer for the petitioner said that Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed did not appoint a new lawyer, on which the Chief Justice said that the responsibility of appointing a lawyer is on the revision appeal applicant, before the hearing I want to clarify that this is not a special bench. Rather, there is a regular bench, the revision petition has not been fixed for hearing for four years and one judge, Justice Mushir Alam, has retired.
The Attorney General said that the Federation does not want to defend in this case. The Chief Justice, speaking to the Attorney General, said that why do you want to withdraw it now, there are mistakes in the previously said decision, so tell me the reasons for withdrawing it now. The Attorney General said that when the revision appeal was filed, the government was different.
The Chief Justice remarked why you did not file a writ petition, to which the Attorney General said that I am giving my statement.
Lawyer Pemra Hafiz Ehsan said that I am also withdrawing my revision appeal, on which the Chief Justice remarked that on whose instructions are they withdrawing, comments are made on YouTube channels and there are some authorities, but talk. There have been, statements are made that we have not been heard, don’t embarrass us.
The Chief Justice remarked that those who want to speak should file an application, we will listen, but there should be no comments on the pending case, first one remains silent but later says I was not heard, I am not naming anyone. It was said that if I had been heard, I would have said this.
Talking to Pemra’s lawyer, the Chief Justice said that do not destroy institutions and do not do this about public institutions. This is not an order but a request.
PTI lawyer Ali Zafar said that PTI wants to withdraw the review petition against Faizabad dharna case verdict.
The Chief Justice while talking to the PTI lawyer said that I am asking for the third time under Sharia principle, do you really want to withdraw the application.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that I am saying in the light of the instructions that we do not want to defend. The Chief Justice remarked that you are a lawyer of good reputation and we have faith in you, Irfan Qadir has been given notice.
It should be noted that MQM hired Irfan Qadir as a lawyer.
Lawyer Ejaz-ul-Haq said that we had nothing to do with this sit-in, the Chief Justice said that we had made observations in the light of the report.
The Chief Justice while talking to lawyer Ejazul Haq said that you should write in writing that you did not support the Faizabad sit-in.
Lawyer Ejazul Haque said that the observations given regarding Ejazul Haque are not correct. The Chief Justice remarked that your objection is not on the decision but on the report, we mentioned Ijazul Haq in the decision in the light of the ISI report, you gave an affidavit, the report was wrong.
The Chief Justice remarked that the Election Commission has a great status, you said about a law that it is an artificial law.
Lawyer Election Commission said that now a long time has passed, now the government and the Election Commission have become wise enough. The Chief Justice remarked that Attorney General sir, why did you not talk about fixing the revision petition first, why the petitions are being withdrawn, tell us, why everyone is shying away from speaking the truth.
Justice Athar Minullah remarked that the Faizabad dharna was a landmark decision, while talking to the Attorney General, asked him to tell what was done about the decision. The Chief Justice remarked that we had written the entire narrative in the Dharna verdict.
The Attorney General said that the Chief Justice himself should look at his own institution as to why the revision was not fixed for so long, on which the Chief Justice remarked that we want to start the process of self-accountability from ourselves.
While talking to the lawyer of the Election Commission, the Chief Justice asked why a constitutional body is so hesitant, are they saying that they will see later, on May 12, 55 people died, there was blood and you are saying, get soil. The Chief Justice inquired that why not add soil? Wait for a new event?
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa remarked that the Supreme Court itself is accountable and we are accountable to the people. The Election Commission is a constitutional body. had ordered The federal government should return the applications, but what will be the implementation?
The Chief Justice remarked that it seems that the late Khadim Rizvi accepted the decision, mistakes happen to everyone, but the one who admits mistakes is the greatest, the mistake may be my fault, but why are PEMRA and the Election Commission upset? Commission filed independent revision or filed at the instance of one.
The Chief Justice remarked that in Pakistan the order comes from the top and the order from the top means Nawzabullah. There is no Allah, the order from above means it has come from somewhere else, did the Election Commission ever file a review of the order, a believer can never be a liar, punishment is a matter of later, at least confess. Hence withdrawing the application. At least tell the truth, don’t play games with us.
The Chief Justice remarked that the lawyers of the Election Commission should tell whom they are afraid of. It is easy to make speeches on TV, but tell them whose order was given here. Today, they accept the decision as correct, but why were revision petitions filed? It was expected that one reconsideration request would come but three came. Where is that gentleman who came from Canada for democracy. One gentleman does not want to talk much about it.
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa remarked that cases may come before us, lawyers are very brave and speak the truth. What, we will answer, you called the law of Pakistan cosmetic, give details about the sources of income of political parties.
The Election Commission counsel said that we will give a written reply, to which the Chief Justice asked if there was any agreement between the sit-in protesters.
The Attorney General said that yes, there was an agreement. The Chief Justice inquired whether that agreement is still there or not. Is the sit-in agreement part of the record? Bring the Faizabad sit-in agreement on record, to what extent did PEMRA implement our orders?
The Chief Justice said that why are containers installed everywhere? Prisoners of war are tried even after 80-80 years, living nations are not like ours, that just what happened is done, it does not happen, move on.
The Chief Justice said that we hear complaints against judges, we have not taken authority from anyone, if someone comes to us tomorrow to take action, then what will happen? It is better to take action ourselves. We are strengthening the state institutions, not degrading them. Our decision was for this period. We could have written a lot in the decision. We wrote what were the facts before us. .
Justice Athar Manullah said that a picture of harassing a journalist was printed, on which the Chief Justice said that the commission to find the truth has not been formed, we should be impeached, today everyone accepted that our decision was true, now it depends on you Whether to support the truth or not.
During the hearing on the revision appeals, the court said that the Ministry of Defense says that we are withdrawing the revision request, IB and Pemra have also requested to withdraw the revision and PTI has also requested to withdraw the revision. is
The court said that Sheikh Rasheed is allowed to appoint a new lawyer or present arguments himself, giving MQM an opportunity to appoint a new lawyer. The lawyer asked for time to submit the written affidavit, the lawyer of the Election Commission also requested to withdraw the review.
The Supreme Court said that some of the parties are not present in the court, but we are giving another chance to all the parties. Attorney General should report on the implementation of the court decision. Can be submitted.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice explained the reason why the hearing of the Faizabad dharna case was not telecasted. A two-member committee, which is currently working, will look into the matter after the committee reports.
Later, the Chief Justice adjourned the hearing of the case till November 1.
#Supreme #Courts #order #bring #record #agreement #protesters
Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Asma Qureshi on the Recent Developments in the Faizabad Dharnas Case
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Qureshi. We appreciate your insights on the unfolding situation regarding the Faizabad dharna case. Can you explain the significance of the recent hearings before Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa?
Dr. Qureshi: Thank you for having me. The significance of these hearings lies in the withdrawal of multiple review petitions by key players like the federal government, the Election Commission, and PTI. This withdrawal symbolizes a remarkable shift in the legal landscape and raises questions about accountability and transparency in political actions. It highlights the tension between legal obligations and political pressures.
Editor: The Chief Justice expressed concerns about why these parties are hesitant to speak the truth. What do you think is causing this reluctance?
Dr. Qureshi: It appears that there may be underlying political influences at play. The Chief Justice’s remarks suggest that there is fear of repercussions or pressures from higher authorities, which is unfortunately common in political and legal circles in Pakistan. The Justice emphasized the need for honesty in proceedings and self-accountability, which shows his commitment to integrity in the legal system.
Editor: The Chief Justice also mentioned that mistakes happen and it’s important to admit to them. How do you interpret this statement in the context of the legal system?
Dr. Qureshi: This remark underscores the principle that acknowledging errors is a sign of strength and accountability, not weakness. It is a critical part of the legal process, especially in a democracy. By urging parties to admit their mistakes, the Chief Justice is advocating for a more transparent and responsible approach, which is essential for restoring public trust in institutions.
Editor: The discussion also touched upon the timing of the petition withdrawals and their implications. What might this mean for the future of institutional trust in Pakistan?
Dr. Qureshi: The timing of these withdrawals raises suspicions about the motivations behind them. It suggests a lack of confidence in the judicial process and possibly a fear of public backlash. For the future, if institutions continuously act on perceived orders from above without transparency, it could lead to a significant erosion of public trust. Establishing clear accountability mechanisms will be crucial moving forward.
Editor: Lastly, how do you see the role of the Election Commission and other bodies evolving after these developments?
Dr. Qureshi: The Election Commission and similar bodies must embrace their constitutional roles with renewed vigor. They need to assert their independence and not shy away from making tough decisions. If they are perceived as being affected by political pressures, it could undermine their legitimacy and effectiveness. Continuous self-assessment and a commitment to uphold the tenets of democracy will be essential for their future role.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Qureshi, for your valuable insights. It seems that the situation is still developing, and we will be watching closely to see how these events unfold.
Dr. Qureshi: Thank you for having me. It’s important to keep the conversation going about these critical issues for the future of our legal and political landscape.
Editor: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Qureshi. Given the complexities of the Faizabad dharna case, what do you think the implications are for future legal actions involving constitutional bodies like the Election Commission and PEMRA?
Dr. Qureshi: The implications could be significant. The decisions made in the Faizabad dharna case may set a precedent for how constitutional bodies interact with political entities and their accountability. If these institutions are hesitant to defend their positions due to political pressures, it undermines their credibility. The Chief Justice’s focus on the need for these bodies to engage transparently in court proceedings is crucial for strengthening their mandate and ensuring they uphold democratic values in their operations.
Editor: In your view, how should legal institutions respond to this call for accountability and transparency?
Dr. Qureshi: Legal institutions need to foster an environment where challenges are recognized and addressed without fear of repercussion. Implementing regular audits of decision-making processes and ensuring that citizens have channels to voice their concerns can strengthen public trust. Furthermore, there should be an emphasis on education within these institutions about the importance of integrity and transparency in governance.
Editor: Dr. Qureshi, how can the public and civil society engage with these legal changes to ensure their voices are heard?
Dr. Qureshi: Public engagement is vital. Civil society can hold educational seminars, advocate for legal reforms, and encourage citizens to participate in the legal process. Active monitoring of these cases and reporting on the advances or setbacks can also create pressure on institutions to adhere to principles of justice and accountability. Ultimately, fostering a culture of civic activism will empower individuals to advocate for their rights and demand transparency from both political and legal frameworks.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Qureshi, for your valuable perspectives on this pressing issue. We look forward to seeing how these developments unfold in the coming weeks.
Dr. Qureshi: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing these crucial discussions.
