“Non-Maintainable”: What did the Pakistan Supreme Court mean?

Posted on September 29, 2007
Filed Under >Saleem S. Rizvi, Law & Justice, Politics
Total Views: 103842


Saleem S. Rizvi

By cleverly tiptoeing around the land mine of constitutional issues relating to General Musharraf’s electability in uniform and his second term as president, the majority of the nine- judge bench of the apex court has rendered a decision purely wrapped in legal technicalities.

ATP Poll on Musharraf and Polls In simple words, the majority of the bench has said something to the effect that the legal questions pertaining to General Musharraf’s right to simultaneously retain the office of president and army chiefs, the constitutionality of his running for the second term, and whether he can be elected by outgoing assemblies is simply not our headache.

In other words, the Bench seems to be saying that the current political mess was created by the politicians in the first place, and it ought to be sorted out in political institutions not in the Supreme Court: This monster is not our creation.

Having used a technical term such as “non-maintainable”, the majority managed to pull the apex court out of a perilous situation between the rock and the hard place, but the real question is whether the apex court gave any consideration to pulling the nation out of even greater constitutional turmoil currently facing the country. History most probably will answer this question in the negative.

It is vital to understand that the majority opinion did not say that the petitions against Musharraf have no merits and therefore the general has the right to keep his uniform on, while getting himself elected by the expiring assemblies, as misinterpreted by many newspaper headlines, it simply said that under the Constitution, these sort of petitions may not be adjudicated on their merits in the Supreme Court. Doesn’t this type of constitutional short cutting raise more questions than answers? Does it mean the spirit of the Constitution has once again been sacrificed at the altar of constitutional literal fundamentalism?

In this back drop, various other questions beg for prompt answers. If the main issue was strictly about the maintainability of the petitions, then why did the Bench squander so much precious time on issues beyond the main issue? In plain language, if the Bench had any initial concerns and reservations as to whether these sorts of petitions can be filed and adjudicated in the Supreme Court, then why didn’t the Bench focus on such vital issues in the first place? Why did the Bench not direct the lawyers to address solely the maintainability issue, instead of allowing the arguments to be dragged on for almost two weeks and constantly dancing around the merit of the petitions, while seemingly enjoying exchanges of political remarks? Wasn’t time of the essence?

The current ruling of the nine-judge panel, being viewed as highly controversial, will certainly not be of any help to defuse the ever expanding crises in Pakistan. The political and constitutional storm currently engulfing Pakistan are a constant source of anguish and concern for Pakistanis living in the country and abroad. While the leadership in the neighboring countries is busy helping their people on the road to prosperity and development (By 2025, China and India will have the world’s second and fourth largest economies), the Pakistani government is negligently absent from foreign and domestic platform of public importance. The entire government machinery has been completely bogged down in a dangerous power game for many months, just to save the men currently in power, and leaving important national and international affairs unattended.

While world leaders, currently meeting and representing their nations at the United Nations, Pakistan’s absence at this vital event is indicative of how badly Pakistani external affairs are being handled. The situation with internal affairs is no different either. No new policies and initiatives are in sight to combat mounting national challenges. The costs of essential commodities are getting out of reach. Both foreign and domestic investors are scared to invest in the country. The law and order situation is at the brink of complete collapse, and insurgency around the borders is ever increasing . . . just to name a few. The people of Pakistan and the Pakistani Diaspora alike are increasingly becoming worried about the future of their homeland.

Pakistan, at the moment, is facing extremely dangerous constitutional and political crises of an unprecedented magnitude. In this context, it is equally disturbing that in the name of notions such as “ground realities” and “political transition” the government machinery, while fully deployed in pursuing ruthless tactics, still trying to convince the masses that all will be in order and they are taking decisions “in the best interest of the country and people of Pakistan.”

Doesn’t this line of unilateral declarations sound familiar, frequently uttered before every national disaster in Pakistan? Aren’t the efforts to manipulate the system to produce a controlled outcome, in secrecy and behind the public’s back, inherently undemocratic and suspicious? Are we still living in a tribal society, devoid of any public accountability?

Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are not the personal property of the few in power, about whom they can go about making arbitrary decisions on their own without public engagement. The plethora of recently taken extra judicial actions by General Musharraf & Co. leaves no doubt that the days of preaching “Enlightened Moderation” are over. Doesn’t the Pakistani general along with his partners in power stand fully exposed? The mantra of “Enlightened Moderation” while being highly pleasing to the ears of its foreign clients, turns out to be nothing more than a deceiving veil obscuring the face of an inherently illegal and coercive regime. Evidence clearly suggests that what is now being practiced by the general and his regime is the brutal deployment of various unconstitutional measures, may collectively be called “Blatant Extremism.”

There is a great degree of consensus among legal experts in Pakistan and abroad that the current political and constitutional crises in Pakistan are the direct consequence of Musharraf’s ultra vice actions. The current ruling of the Supreme Court did no address the main questions pertaining to his uniform and his second term as president, and the issues are still unresolved resulting in more confusion than ever before for the general public.

One of the hopes for finding a true solution to the recent constitutional crisis in Pakistan still rest on any future legal struggle for having Musharraf’s actions declared ultra vice by the Supreme Court. Once that is accomplished, his actions can be declared null and void and the nullification will be ab inito, that is, from the inception, not from the date of findings. It may be a long road, but it is probably the right one.

In the face of an informed public, the present junta will not be able to retain its illegal hold on power for long. One has to be a little patient to enjoy the fruit of the right struggle! The ruthless application of “the end justifies the means” dictum must come to an end. The hard working and patriotic people of Pakistan do not deserve the suffering resulting from the hostilities, turmoil and agony of the present situation.

The writer, after receiving a Master of Laws degree in International law from Columbia University, New York, has been practicing law in the US for over 17 years.

34 Comments on ““Non-Maintainable”: What did the Pakistan Supreme Court mean?”

  1. Shehzad Ahmed Mir says:
    September 29th, 2007 11:53 am

    The Supreme Court wit its recent decision has said that POLITICS should be decided in POLITICAL ARENAS such as the parliament and inter-party dialogs. Accepting such petitions is like opening of Pandora’s box for all political parties who will then rush to the court even for small matters such as rejection of a Law Bill, political grievances against opposition etc.

    So in case the angry protesters now conveniently forget that this is the same Court which was cherished for its uprightness few months ago for reinstating the CJ. Now just because the same court has not given a verdict based on the likes and dislikes of a few narrow-sighted souls, its bound to be labeled as a pariah again by the same black coats & politicians who few months ago were chirping & harping like nightingales the miracle of its independence.

    Rest assured Mushharaf WILL be the President, PMLQ WILL be the ruling party and the only question now to be answered is that who will be the next Prime Minister? Not Shaukat? Humayun Akhter maybe?? ; – )

  2. Shahid Husain says:
    September 29th, 2007 12:09 pm

    True that the court did not address the issue at hand and said that the petition is not maintainable and now the opposition is up in arms. In the CJ’s case the court once again did not address the main complaint that the CJ was misusing his power and just said the petition was not maintainable and everyone was thrilled that the judiciary was independent. Have the charges against the CJ been adjucated? No. Our biggest problem is that when something is in our favour then all is well, legal or illegal but if it is against us then we do not have the decency to accept it. Look at our elections. The party which wins always says that the election was free and fair and one that loses says that it was rigged. Atizaz Ahsan said after the CJ’s reinstatement that now the judiciary has become independent and this can now never be rolled back! Now a few weeks later I’m sure he’ll tell us that the judiciary is not independent. Such are our ways.

    The buck has to stop at the door of the political parties. They are the ones who for their gain passed laws which gave Musharraf this power. Even today PPP and PML (N) signed a deal not to talk to the army. Look what’s happening today – PPP is trying to cut a deal with the army for Benazir’s personal gain which includes changing the laws. Why blame the Supreme Court. The Politian

  3. Deewana Aik says:
    September 29th, 2007 12:14 pm
  4. September 29th, 2007 12:36 pm

    I guess my open letter to Mush has been a waste of time, its here if you want a read – http://www.otherpakistan.org/archive.html

    The decision is a weak one by men of weak disposition except for the three dissenters. Forget the legal niceties about maintainability or not for the real decision is not based on law its simply based on the fact that the majority of the court cowed to the whims and continuing control of GHQ. The Nation’s editorial today hits the nail on the head ‘ it would seem that the court has struck a bargain for the future of democracy. There’s no saying how much ground has been lost in constitutional terms. Time would tell whether this was too high a price to pay for a civilian president. It is hoped, in any case, that the President would take off his uniform after his reelection and would assume the benign role that the constitution stipulates for the Head of State. The executive authority should return to the leaders who have the genuine support of the people’

    I urge the people to resist the verdict and deliver their own verdict in the streets ONLY BY PEACEFUL PROTEST.



  5. Deewana Aik says:
    September 29th, 2007 12:40 pm

    Baghwan Das has indirectly (but publically) criticised the SC decision and his fellow justices who have ruled in favour of Musharaf. This single non-Muslim has shown more integrity than all the Mullahs put together.

  6. asa says:
    September 29th, 2007 12:53 pm

    The govt is beating the lawyers and the journalists like animals now. What does Musharraf want now. He has won the case and he has got the numbers in parliament. Even the female journalists and the female lawyers were brutally beaten.
    The SSP and the IG are also holding sticks and I myself saw the IG thrashing Ali Ahmed Kurd.

  7. September 29th, 2007 12:59 pm


    I agree but its about integrity, how can anyone accept a verdict of such a huge issue based on a technicality. I thinks it amounts to a crime against our own people. How can such esteemed judges listen to such issues for weeks and then deliver a verdict on the flimsiest of pretexes?

    I still hope my letter may do the trick, I have sent it again to the President’s men as a last resort, see it here http://www.otherpakistan.org/archive.html

    I am at a loss at what I can do to help heal the nation, ATP readers do have a read of the letter and visit Other Pakistan today and see all the pages and help create an ‘other’ Pakistan.



  8. Abid says:
    September 29th, 2007 1:14 pm

    Where in the world would a Supreme Court issue a ruling allowing a serving and uniformed military official to have a dual post as a President of a country. Only in Pakistan. No wonder, Pakistanis are both angry and ashamed.

  9. Abdullah says:
    September 29th, 2007 1:14 pm

    This is very good and refreshing analysis… first, the SC has thrown the ball back in the political court… which is where it should be… second, as is clear from what is happening on the streets of Pakistan right now, this story is far from over and much may happen in teh next few days… maybe in teh next few hours

  10. Farrukh says:
    September 29th, 2007 1:17 pm

    Abid, you are blaming the wrong people. You ask: “Where in the world would a Supreme Court issue a ruling allowing a serving and uniformed military official to have a dual post”?

    They woudl do so in a country where teh politicains passed the 17th amendment… The question before the court was not whether the amendement was right or wrong, but whether, under that amendment this appeal was maintainable or not. I think this post answers that question… lets not confuse the issue.

  11. Abid says:
    September 29th, 2007 1:23 pm

    Faerukh, in Pakistan, power belongs to the Military Inc. – they control and possess the resources, which in turn enables them to control the behavior of others (and yes, even verdict of the courts, and the Courts tends to play both sides of the fence). As a purveyor of power and as a protector of privilege, the Military Inc basically calls all the shots and holds the key to anything and everything that they want, no matter whatever the cost in lives or to the national treasury.

  12. Abid says:
    September 29th, 2007 2:34 pm

    Farrukh, I think you need to read the post again or atleast the essence of this post to remove your misunderstanding and/or confusion:

    “By cleverly tiptoeing …[SC] rendered a decision purely wrapped in legal technicalities … Having used a technical term such as “non-maintainable”, the majority managed to pull the apex court out of a perilous situation between the rock and the hard place, but the real question is whether the apex court gave any consideration to pulling the nation out of even greater constitutional turmoil currently facing the country. History most probably will answer this question in the negative.

    Doesn’t this type of constitutional short cutting raise more questions than answers? Does it mean the spirit of the Constitution has once again been sacrificed at the altar of constitutional literal fundamentalism?
    In this back drop, various other questions beg for prompt answers. If the main issue was strictly about the maintainability of the petitions, then why did the Bench squander so much precious time on issues beyond the main issue? In plain language, if the Bench had any initial concerns and reservations as to whether these sorts of petitions can be filed and adjudicated in the Supreme Court, then why didn’t the Bench focus on such vital issues in the first place? Why did the Bench not direct the lawyers to address solely the maintainability issue, instead of allowing the arguments to be dragged on for almost two weeks and constantly dancing around the merit of the petitions, while seemingly enjoying exchanges of political remarks? Wasn’t time of the essence?
    The current ruling of the Supreme Court did not address the main questions pertaining to his uniform and his second term as president, and the issues are still unresolved resulting in more confusion than ever before for the general public.”

  13. Ammar Qureshi says:
    September 29th, 2007 3:56 pm

    I did not want to bring in the ethnic factor into this debate, but as a Punjabi I feel really ashamed that 6 Punjabi judges have favored General Musharraf and 3 non-punjabi judges ( one Sindhi Hindu and 2 pathans) ruled against General Musharraf.

    CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry made a big mistake by constituting the 9 member bench in such a manner that it included 5 judges known for their association with the establishment or government: Justices Nawaz Abbasi and Khokhar had served as law secretary during Musharraf’s time. Justice Javed Iqbal took the oath of acting chief justice when CJ Iftikhar was illegally suspended on 9th of March. Justice Buttar gave the verdict in favour of the government during CJ case and against CJ Iftikhar. Justice Dogar has served as Acting Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Falaksher was the only judge about whom one was not whether he would favor the government or not but at the end he also sided with other punjabi judges.

    Why did CJ iftikhar design the bench in such a manner. i do not know the answer to this question- was it a mistake or was it by design ( due to government pressure).

    General Musharraf referred to the “final punch” and at that time one thought that he is referring to martial law but now one knows what he was referring to…

    The same bench dismissed petitions by Shahid Orakzai and Iqbal Haider as unmaintainable in two days- why did the honourable judges discuss these other petitions for nearly 12 days and then dismiss the petitions as “unmaintainable”. If these two petitions were also “unmaintainable” these could have also been dismissed along with those two petitions in the first 2 or 3 days. By dragging this case for so long and then knocking it out on technical grounds, the judges have definitely favoured the government…

    The dream of independence of judiciary has proved to be an illusion or a mirage…. one feels so disheartened and disillusioned.

  14. AUK says:
    September 29th, 2007 4:46 pm

    From what I understand, the 17th amendment was a one time deal allowing the president to hold 2 offices for a period of 1 term or 5 years. That exemption is no more valid. However using the same assemblies, with no change in their the numerical composition, holding an election for the next 5 years for the President’s office is illegal. Can the members of the assembly get the same deal, i.e. use the results of the last election to keep their seats for another 5 year term? No they can’t, so why should the president be allowed to do so. Once the government had made up its mind to go this way, there was no power in the world who could stop this injustice from being committed against the people. The only recourse was the SC and they claimed disassociation.
    Blaming MMA for this crisis is lame at best. Yes, they helped pass the 17th amendment and they have come to the realization that it was a mistake. That is why the appeals in the court. Yes, God is forgiving and he will forgive all major and minor sins (if he so pleases), but no, we won’t forgive the political mistakes of some.
    The real source of Army’s political power is the ISI and MI, two organizations directly controlled by the Army chief. The role of these organizations in every single crisis during the last year or so have been critical, as these were directly involved in one way or another. These are also not answerable to any power as anytime their role comes under scrutiny, the objections are suppressed in the name of National Security. Mush’s clinging to his second skin is to control these organizations to keep a vice like control over the political scene of the country and to ensure a second term. Only after he has taken care of that next term, he is willing to let go.
    Saleem, a great piece and totally objective. As for managing other affairs of the state besides suppressing the will of the people of Pakistan, as we all know, Richard Boucher is doing a fairly good job at it. He will dictate the course for the next 2 months, next time he visits the President house in Islamabad.

  15. September 29th, 2007 5:16 pm

    Attorney Journal who is proven corrupt and known for malpractices/injustices done during his tenure at LHC may be given a credit of this decision. Blackmailing, threat, bribing etc. are known tactics in Pakistan to even charge off any crime.

    The nations are known from Justice. Lets check are we a nation or a crowd which forms the society where ‘Might is Right’.

  16. Deewana Aik says:
    September 29th, 2007 5:22 pm

    Justice Wajihuddin on the Subject – Part I


  17. Deewana Aik says:
    September 29th, 2007 5:23 pm

    Justice Wajihuddin on the Subject – Part II


  18. AUK says:
    September 30th, 2007 2:00 am

    This is what Justice Bhagwandas had to say about his note of dissent from the majority. In today’s Dawn.

    KARACHI, Sept 29: Mr Justice Rana Bhagwandas of the Supreme Court has said that he recorded his dissent from the majority verdict on petitions against Gen Pervez Musharraf holding two offices on the call of conscience.

    Talking to journalists after a programme organised by the Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST) on Saturday, he said that he had annulled the act regarding the holding of two offices by Gen Musharraf.

    Addressing new students and fresh law graduates of the SZABIST, he said that the functioning of the state and the government had been described in the Constitution.

  19. Aamir Ali says:
    September 30th, 2007 2:44 am

    Why wasn’t the SC benches being ethnically analyzed when the SC ruled against the govt? Did the “Punjabi” judges suddenly lose their manhood or is their manhood intact, and the SC independentent, only problem is you opposition folks cant handle defeat.

    The lawyers are behaving like mobs and should be given a few slaps.

  20. Viqar Minai says:
    September 30th, 2007 3:37 am

    Aamir, when people lose manhood, they resort to using dunda instead; don’t you think?

    BTW, I am not “ethnic Punjabi”; nor is Justice Wajihuddin”. Niether are we paan walas.

  21. Ghalib says:
    September 30th, 2007 6:33 am

    The CJ is what? LFO oath taker? Mush is what? a general? politicians are what? puppets? This all drama is played by beurocracy and some puppets dancing on the trumpets blown by the great great Pak Army! countries have armies but unforunately our army has a country! the only unaccountable army in the world!! kill a elected PM! divide a country!live in mansions,build cantonments! etc! i have lived in Rwp and all i saw in 20 years was army building and building! goto lhr DHA now rwp has one as well khi has?what do u think they are protectors? no they are suckers and suckin everything like the politicians did!they never corrected them as if they do what reason will bring them back in a coup??
    The recent killing of 25 SSG commandos is enough evidence for our military junta that “they have gathered venom for themselves” now if u wear uniform people laugh at u! in the past 60 years if pakistan not one general was treid not one beurocrate got trapped!but the blame goes to the politicians and that paves a way for army and same judiciary and buerocracy start working for them! get it people they are all here to enjoy on the expense of people!
    Politicians no matter how corrupt go topeople and get votes!the army sends some jawans to get everything!and in battles u know what they do:) if they had been “angels” or “protectors” they would ripped corruption out!
    Their only greatnes is that they have taught people a lesson a lesson of “learned helplessness” some few steps away from being a failed state!!
    The decision of reinstating CJ was simple coz there wasnt anything so quietly they accepted coz Mush had bigger plans! His uniform and presidency!check the level and moral of this scum bag that says after ecoming pres he will shed it!what does it imply? coz he knows the same army will ditch him!like AAK Niazi was ditched!the same PML willl turn away and the biggest that he knows himself he has no chance! a person of stature would have done opposite!! Now SC has allowed him for what? if they hadnt there would have been martial law plain an simple!so every Tom Dick and Harry decided let him stay “5 saal he to hain tum bhi khaow hum hum ko b khilaien”
    If u wana check the credibility of pakistan judicial system just go through the case of Z A Bhutto!and see how Army used them!they have the guns and the bullets!the one that will stand perishes!! apart from the bengalis that stood and with help from india got their country! Hats off to them!

  22. ivehadit says:
    September 30th, 2007 10:49 am

    The Supreme Court did what it does best: bow to the wishes of those in power. Without the leadership of the CJ, did we really expect that the others would follow his lead into a world of wiretaps, attempted assassinations, public humilation, character defamation, you name it. Most of the Judges get where they are through a career path and are not given to putting country over personal interest.

    Unfortunately, this judgement falls in line with the “doctrine of necessity”, Bhutto’s hanging, etc. Musharraf raised the ante significantly coming up to the judgement and the Court blinked.

  23. Faisal Bashir says:
    September 30th, 2007 5:26 pm

    Well people there is still a ray of hope at the end of tunnel. I myself disliked the decision but somehow all supremecourt said in simple words is that ( although i disagree) Imran Khan’s and Qazi’s fundamental human rights have nothing to do with wardi. On the other hand Dr. ANwar was not allowed.. implies artilce 63 holds ;). So lets hope and work towards it that when Hon. Justice (Retd)Wajih ud din goes to court, the court does not deny him his FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

  24. Aamir Ali says:
    September 30th, 2007 5:47 pm


    I think people use danda to demonstrate their manhood, which is what the opposition and lawyer mobs are doing.

    Whats so great about this Wajihuddin fellow? Nobody ever heard of him neither does he have any executive experience.

    Those of you on this forum who are insulting army and justifying terrorism have no solution to Pakistani problems.

  25. AUK says:
    September 30th, 2007 6:30 pm

    Aamir Ali, While I can put up with a lot of your crap, but not anything against the man who is the symbol of integrity and principles in an otherwise lawless society of ours. Wajihuddin was a Supreme court judge, one of the 5 who refused to take oath under the PCO of Military regime of Mush and was sent home. If he had taken oath under the PCO, he would have been the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan today due to his seniority at the time.

    To learn more about Mr Wajihuddin, here is a link to Babar Sattar’s piece titled “A few good Men”, in “The News’” opinion section of Sep 29th.

  26. dawa-i-dil says:
    October 1st, 2007 2:54 am

    though 3:30 pm Friday was a sad moment rather shocking…

    but later if we think into this matter ..some deep insight ..things are not simpler as they sems to be….

    9 honrable judges have to decide about the fate of 16 crore people…you cannot imagine..how much pressure was on thier shoulders ..yesterday ..virtually they were walking over a tight rope…..thier one movement of pen coud change the history of Pakistan….

    We have observed 9 honurable judges throughout in past 6 months in newspaper…..

    some of them which favoured General Musharraf are eally very good and brave judges ….and did excellently for the human rights violation cases of Missing people….and other price increasing cases….like

    * Justice Javed Iqbal
    * Justice Javed Buttar
    * Justice Falek Sher

    etc etc….

    Justice javed Iqbal took bold decisons on Missing people case….and price increasing attitudes in Islamabad….

    Justice Falek Sher alongwith Justice Ramdai …ordered to destruct the 11 storey Masood Hospital…on Ferozpur Road Lahore ..although the NGOs were indulging the sifarish of president and Prime Minsiter of pakistan…

    Justice Buttar .a very brave judge ..indeed..brother of Dr Amna Buttar..who was mishandeled b police in Islamabad in procession n favour of Chief Justice….Justice Buttar gave the most vigorous remarks against Musharraf in CJ case…..

    all 3 judges ..yesterday favoured the Government….

    If we think for a bit……what had happened if they would have decided against the President….and why …..

    * do constitution of pakistan not allow him to wear uniform till 15 November,2007

    * do 17 ammendment is not part of Consitution….

    * do 2/3 majority not allowed Musharraf to have dual offices of presidency and Army chief…

    * do 2 SC decisions not validate…dual office principle….

    That why during 11 days …all judges unanimosuly said that ..what we can do now…your own Parliment ..the most supreme instituion of any state ..by 2/3 majority has passed bill in Musharraf favour ..why you lawyers and poiticians ..not go to Parliment and ammend the 17th ammendment and kick out it..or 270aa which validates ..all Musharraf acts….

    Justice Javed Iqbal said the historical sentence….If Parliment is a lame duck…then Supreme Court has no any power injection to made this lame duck ..a lion !!!!!!!

    what a slap..honurable judge made on the bloody…hypocrites..halwa eaters…diesel smugglers…traitors ..sitting in Parliment and receiving 3 lakhs per month with cars..free telephones..and free residencies….

    what the hell these ..politicans did in last 5 years for the people whom they were reperesentin in the assemblies..just go musharraf go slogans ..and deals ..and hypocrisy…..

    all 160 millions people are dozing .. enjoying Mast Mol…and giving all pressures to only 9 men..just 9 men..what a shame…..

    Judges could become TARZANS yesterday..but what would be the result then….

    * Martial Law
    * Emergency
    * Dissolution of Assemly and extending them to 1 more year.

    In all 3 cases what will happen…again we will be back at 1999 …..by de railing the process of Militarization to civilan set up….

    That why on 5 September 2007..on first day..when CJ Jusice ifthikhar said when he was on first day listening this case ..he said to Akram shaikh repersenting Qazi Hussain …he said….

    Akram sahab ..do you want to de-rail the whole system…which is about to to turn into total civilian one..on 15 November just after 2 months……..

    and this one sentence ..shows how the honurable judges of the honurabe Supreme Court of Pakistan…..are thinking about the future of pakistan….and its future dangers…..if they will not decide the case sensibly….

    and i strongly belive that..6 judges also did the same thing yesterday..for the upcoming better of Pakistan…..though it was a bit sad at the moment….but in my humble opinion..will be good…in near future ..if not rejoicing at the time being…..

    having said all this…..

    a brave and hearty salute to 3 brave judges who opposed the majority decision..and proved that they are Justiec Carnilas …followers….and once again ..one and only ..a man with unbeatable respect and repute..Justice Rana Bhagwandas ..in his last case of his 40 years brilliant career..again prooved .that no doubt ..he is one the most brigtest stars ..of pakistan judicial history…..as he is going to retire on December 2007….

    plus…salute to brave Justice Shakurullah Jan and 3r honurable judge….all were from smaller provices ..and once again proved thier loyalty and bravery ….

    History will never forget these 3 brave judges

  27. dawa-i-dil says:
    October 1st, 2007 2:57 am

    ..law is always organic..means changes with time…..

    and now time is saying that …for the betterment of country…its necesarry ..not to make any hurdle ..in going out military ruler..thats why judges interpreted it ..in theis regard….

    but see ..3 judges wen aginst….

    i again say…..its just like that..a robber comes into any house ..and say to the owner that.. i will only loot money..but if you resised…the honour of women in the house also will be in danger….
    so better to loot him ….money rather than honour ….

    similarly….if the ruler is asking way out ..from uniform..its the responsibility of the 9 honurable judges ..to decide the fate of 16 crore people and Pakistan…sensibly…..

    otherwise…you know pakistan’s history…whats happened to it..in past 60 years…

    No no ..its not nazria zaroorat ..in my humble opinion…..
    justice javed iqbal time and agin said that ..the decison will not be of nazria zaroorat….

    actually nazriya zaroorat came every time ..to “VALIDATE ” and “LEGATAMIZE” any army ruler when he comes….

    this time an army ruler is GOING out…..

    and if the judges had become TARZANS yesterday…then…may be we have again 10 years MARTIAL LAW….

    i am not saying that it was an ideal decison…but its better to have something..rather than nothing..thats way..i think so…

    and they exactly did thier job according to law….

    do the constitution of Pakistan ..not says that General Musharraf can hold 2 offices until 15 november…2007….

    they not did any political decision…..

    the honurable judges gave the decison exactly according to the Constitution of Pakistan….

    thast why they time and again said that…we have not put this uniform to President ..Parliment did that..why you people come to us..go to Parliment…make 2/3 majority and kick the uniform bill out of Parliment….

    the 9 honurable judges of SC of Pakistan almost completed thier case about 12 pm noon…and then announced it on 3;30 pm….

    if 30 min. of Jumma Prayers..you can imagine ..for 3 hours..they burnt thier nerves ..and nuerons to take this difficult and un popular decison….

    3 hours is not a short time…you can yourself imagine..how difficult it is when 9 people have to decide about the future of whole country and 16 crore people

  28. dawa-i-dil says:
    October 1st, 2007 2:59 am

    ..the 3 brave judges not went aginst the constitution ….bu thse blessed souls …uphold the “Spirit of Constitution ” which says that ..in democatic system..an army ruler cannot be a president or candidate of presendial offce….

    actually ..its just like the above robber example….a army ruler is sitting in the house with guns…..

    by the rule of De Facto….what can you do ….better to give him a “save Passage” …so that this De Facto rule will eventually change into De Juro rule…

    6 honurable judges decded the case by above mentiod De juro rule ..and

    3 honurable judges decide the case …according to Spirit of Constitution….

    thats the only difference….

    but again …its time to use De juro…to have something rather than nothing…..


  29. Viqar Minai says:
    October 1st, 2007 5:24 am

    Everyone I know, who saw the coverage, saw the govt use the danda. You’re the first one to note that it was being used by the lawyers and journalists.

    Justice Wajih’s lack of executive experience is not an issue. In the Pakistani parliamnetary system, the executive powere lies with the prime minister for the most part. The president has only certain constitutional executive powers.

    Pakistan cannot develop its human assets as long as the armed forces eat away the major chunk of the budget. Defence budget has nearly Rs 10 for every rupee allocated for education and health care.

    The only person justifying state terrorism in this forum is you.

  30. Haris says:
    October 2nd, 2007 2:14 am

    I feel that the SC under the pressure from secret agencies prolonged the case to give time to Mushi (may Allah’s curse be on him) so that people remain engaged in the case as long as possible and then they will have as less time as possible to do any backup plans.

  31. Daktar says:
    October 5th, 2007 11:50 am

    So, what is the Supreme Cour saying now and what does it mean? They say, hold teh elections but don’t announce the results… is this just preparing for later when they will say, well now the elctions are done so lets just accept them!

  32. Viqar Minai says:
    October 5th, 2007 12:42 pm

    I don’t know if any other apex court anywhere in the world has ever rendered such an asinine judgement.

    Imagine that lots of voters may be voting for a candidate who is – it might turn out – not eligible to contest the Presidential elections in the first place. Don’t the voters deserve to know ahead of polling if certain candidates are ineligible so they could choose to vote for someone else?

    Is it a congenital condition that prevents us from taking the obvious correct decisions? Must we always insist on grabbing the nose around the ears instead of directly reaching for it?

    Would the heavens have collapsed if the SC stayed the election until it could be determined who is eligible and who is not?

    How long Oh Lord? Oh well …

  33. October 30th, 2007 10:47 pm

    I think it was high time the Army itself took action against Musharaf. If not, then they should expect more disdain from the masses.

    February 6th, 2008 6:30 am

    you guys are the bomb

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)