Hukumati commission banne ke Supreme Court ko suo moto kyu lena para? | Legal Analysis
Hukumati commission banne ke Supreme Court ko suo moto kyu lena para? | Legal Analysis
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 I have seen that before a commission is formed, they are asked for their opinion.
00:07 "Sir, do you have any objection that we should make you the head of the commission or put you in the commission?"
00:12 I am sure that Mr. Jalani must have been asked before to do this.
00:17 And then he must have notified.
00:20 Why did Mr. Jalani feel that he should not do this? Was there a lot of pressure?
00:26 I have no other opinion.
00:30 I am sure that Mr. Jalani must have been asked by the government.
00:36 "We want to make you the head of the commission."
00:40 And he has given his willingness.
00:42 And he incorporated this when he was named as the head of the commission.
00:46 He gave his consent.
00:48 And later, when he was the chairman,
00:51 the government officials kept saying that they have taken his consent and made him the head of the commission.
00:57 He also thanked the Chief Justice of Pakistan and Justice Manohar Rajasthan.
01:02 You must remember this.
01:03 He said that he trusted him.
01:05 This means that he must have spoken to him about this.
01:07 Look, if you look at all the events together,
01:12 the first day, the Chief Justice called the judges to his house in the evening,
01:17 the judges of Islamabad High Court.
01:21 And the next day, the full court meeting.
01:23 And there was no announcement of the full court meeting.
01:25 Immediately after that, the Prime Minister was informed by the Attorney General.
01:28 And the next day, the Prime Minister came.
01:32 And then, immediately after the meeting, the full court.
01:36 It means that the Supreme Court, whether it was a majority or a consensus,
01:41 The consensus was developed amongst the majority of the members of the full court.
01:45 It means that the majority had a consensus.
01:47 The Chief Justice must have spoken about it with the mandate.
01:51 So, these things must have been discussed in name.
01:55 And the consensus must have been developed in the same name.
01:58 Because of which, when the law minister said in the press conference after the meeting,
02:05 that the Chief Justice must have been an integrity and a good man.
02:09 It must have happened at that time.
02:10 It must have happened at that time.
02:11 Then why did he step back?
02:12 Why did the Supreme Court come forward?
02:13 Why did the slow-moto happen?
02:15 Why did the seven-member bench form?
02:16 I will tell you.
02:17 Maybe he could not bear the pressure.
02:21 This is also present in its place.
02:23 And the second thing is that when this letter came to us or to the public,
02:29 Before that, the bench was formed.
02:32 And the seven-member bench had been formed.
02:36 After that, after a quarter of an hour, the Attorney General...
02:41 I don't know if he was already on the way.
02:44 I spoke to a very important government official.
02:46 Earlier, Mr. Jalani had come.
02:47 He had said this.
02:49 Earlier, he had accused.
02:51 And after that, the Supreme Court should have gone.
02:54 I am talking about my knowledge.
02:56 What came on the screen first and what came later.
02:59 Maybe he informed first and the Supreme Court came.
03:01 And after that, the Supreme Court took a slow-moto.
03:02 Maybe this happened.
03:04 The seven-member bench or full court.
03:08 There is a debate on this too.
03:10 Yes, it is going on.
03:12 Actually, the practice and procedure act is in progress.
03:17 But if you look at it, then in 184.3,
03:20 Again, I say again and again that if someone has the most power in Pakistan,
03:25 Then he is with the Chief Justice of Pakistan in 184.3.
03:29 And because this is such a matter that in one letter,
03:33 Seven judges have endorsed all these incidents.
03:37 And these are serving judges.
03:39 Because even today,
03:41 It's not seven, it's six.
03:42 It's six, but one letter is written in seven.
03:44 Seven means there is no signature.
03:46 They were not in the country at that time, so they did not have a signature.
03:48 Anyway, even if they do six, even if they do one,
03:51 So this is a judge's.
03:54 One judge did it, he was thrown out.
03:57 But the judge's decision is a decision.
04:00 And people's rights are accrued on it.
04:03 So should there be a full court?
04:05 So when a judge's decision goes to two judges in the Supreme Court,
04:08 Appeal is made to three judges.
04:10 So here is a complaint of six judges.
04:12 For this, a full court was made.
04:14 At least nine judges were made.
04:16 But it's okay, it's late, it's right.
04:18 This is also a concept that if you make eight or nine, then the appeal will be made.
04:22 There is a legal hurdle in this.
04:25 Before this, if this had happened before the practice and procedure act,
04:30 Then the weight would have been.
04:32 Now you need a bench for appeal.
04:33 Now you should fight for the appeal.
04:35 Any agreed party, by mistake or merit,
04:38 We do not go to the side.
04:39 We take its technicalities.
04:41 If this bench makes a decision and there is any agreed party,
04:45 So under the practice and procedure act,
04:47 He should get the right to appeal.
04:49 And these judges cannot sit in it.
04:51 The remaining judges will be part of the bench.
04:55 So technically, I think this is the reason.
04:57 But this was also made a lot.
04:59 You will remember, Justice Ayesha repeatedly raised this question.
05:03 If I'm not mistaken, when this practice and procedure bill was discussed.
05:06 That you have made the full court redundant.
05:08 The full court cannot be made.
05:10 But at that time, I think,
05:12 On one side, our Supreme Court was going.
05:14 So there is that gray area, sir.
05:16 But nonetheless, we must celebrate.
05:20 I think if we agree on this, it is better.
05:24 It should not be made controversial.
05:26 It is better than this.
05:27 We must celebrate, sir, that the judiciary has kept the matter with itself.
05:31 Now we pray for this.
05:33 And at the same time, we express our solidarity with the judiciary.
05:40 That we stand with them for their independence and freedom.
05:43 And we will protect this entire hearing.
05:46 It will not happen that in this hearing,
05:48 Someone will hit a stick and go from here to there.
05:51 We want this thread to be bare.
05:53 This goes to the fundamental roots of the justice system of Pakistan.
05:58 Here, from the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court,
06:02 This issue arises again and again.
06:04 Sometimes, Mr. Mian says, why did you remove me?
06:06 Sometimes, a 50-year-old judgment comes.
06:08 Sometimes, we see Munir's case.
06:11 And sometimes, we see...
06:12 They have also concluded Mr. Ali Bhutto's case.
06:14 Yes, absolutely.
06:15 And we have just seen Mr. Shaukat Siddiqui's case.
06:17 Now, look at the Tosha Khana case.
06:19 I myself am presenting there.
06:20 The judge fell ill six times.
06:22 But there was so much pressure on him.
06:23 To fall ill...
06:24 There was so much pressure that he was sentenced for 14 years.
06:26 The punishment that was suspended today.
06:28 So, these things...
06:29 But who doesn't know about these pressures?
06:31 Exactly.
06:32 These are old pressures that have been put in.
06:33 But, sir, this thread should be bare.
06:34 I will come to the reporter's side.
06:36 Mr. Pasha, what will be the method now?
06:38 Look, the first voice that the accused judges raised was that
06:42 The forum should be fine and there should be an investigation.
06:44 The forum was fine and now there will be an investigation.
06:47 How will it be?
06:48 Sir, you have asked a very important question.
06:50 Look,
06:53 If the Supreme Court takes cognizance in 184.3,
06:58 then the point in issue is that
07:01 can the Supreme Court investigate?
07:04 My view is that the Supreme Court or any high court
07:08 cannot investigate.
07:10 Even the courts have been discouraged
07:13 that you cannot interfere in the investigation process.
07:17 Because the investigator will be prejudiced.
07:20 Now, the matter is very important.
07:22 You remember the Panama case?
07:24 The case was sent to the NAB court.
07:26 No, no, no.
07:27 And even after doing the work there...
07:28 No, no, JIT.
07:29 Sir, JIT was sent to the NAB court.
07:31 Even after that, sir,
07:32 Even after that, the case was sent to the NAB court.
07:34 Okay, second thing.
07:35 Take the case of Harsh Sharif.
07:37 JIT was also made in that case.
07:39 It was taken cognizance in 184.3, right?
07:41 Even now, I am struck by one thing here.
07:45 That the 7 members of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
07:49 how will the bench collect the evidence?
07:53 The inquiry has to be done.
07:55 Because it cannot be one-sided.
07:57 The judge and the executor cannot be one.
08:00 It is against the principle.
08:02 So, for this, we will have to go to the commission.
08:05 And I am forcing this question.
08:07 When this bench will be seated
08:09 and all the lawyers, the big lawyers will come,
08:12 then the judge will definitely ask this question
08:14 that how to start with?
08:16 This is the question.
08:18 And the answer is?
08:19 Sir, look, these are respected judges.
08:22 They have no kind of allegations.
08:24 I will not believe their words.
08:27 I will accept their words.
08:29 I just want to see what were those actions?
08:32 Were they individual actions?
08:34 Was it something else?
08:35 What was the background?
08:36 If it was not, I will not say that the judges are lying.
08:39 Or there is a possibility of doubt in their words.
08:41 The rest is the work of the courts.
08:43 For my understanding.
08:45 There are 6 judges.
08:47 And one of them has made such an allegation
08:49 that we have been approached.