| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1660 2018 SLD 1660 2018 PLD 538 |
Constitution Petition No. 29 and Civil Misc. Application No. 7669 of 2017 in Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2017 and Constitution Petition No. 36 of 2017 and Civil Misc. Application No. 9965 of 2017 in Constitution Petition No. 36 of 2017. Dates of Hearing: 13, 14, 27 and 28-03-2018.
SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE, MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Muhammad Makhdoom Ali Khan and Hamid Khan, Senior Advocates Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No.29 of 2017). Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Hassan Irfan, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ajmal Toor, Advocate and Ms. Khadija Yasmin Bokhari, Advocate for Petitioners (in Const.P.36 of 2017). Ashtar Ausaf Ali Attorney General for Pakistan assisted by Barrister Asad Rahim Khan, Advocate, Mirza Moiz Baig, Advocate and Mirza Nassar, DAG (On Court Notice on behalf of Federation), Shahid Hamid and Munir A. Malik, Senior Advocates Supreme Court: Amici Curiae.
JUSTICE SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY LAW AND JUSTICE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS
Law:
Section: 4,9,209
(a) Interpretation of Constitution--- ----Principles and genesis---While interpreting any provision of the Constitution or for that matter any law it was imperative that the said provision be contextualized in its proper perspective keeping in view its genesis and more importantly, the purpose sought to be achieved by its enactment. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 4 & 9---Access to justice---Independent judiciary---Tenure of judges---Concept of access to justice could not exist without an independent judiciary---Security of tenure of Judges was a critical pre-condition for such independence. Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and others PLD 2010 SC 61 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 209---Supreme Judicial Council, proceedings of---Nature and scope---Supreme Judicial Council ("Council") was not a Court though it may exhibit some of its trappings including the power to punish for contempt---Council was akin to a domestic forum and it conducted administrative proceedings regarding the question of conduct or capacity of a Judge, who was to be judged by his own peers---Proceedings before the Council were essentially a fact-finding inquiry, and its findings were recommendatory in nature and did not enjoy the status of a right determining handed down by a civil or criminal court which was per se final, enforceable or executable---Council could not itself remove a Judge on the basis of its findings but any conclusion drawn had been bestowed with an element of quietus i.e. finality. Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and others PLD 2010 SC 61 ref. (d) Interpretation of Constitution--- ----Conferring of jurisdiction---Implied power, principle of---Scope---Where a law (more so the Constitution) conferred jurisdiction it impliedly also granted the power to do all such acts and employ all such means as were essential and necessary for the exercise of such jurisdiction---Said principle of "implied power" was based on the well known legal maxim "Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus Jurisdictio…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492