AGL 40.21 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.45%)
AIRLINK 127.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.05%)
BOP 6.67 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.91%)
CNERGY 4.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-3.26%)
DCL 8.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.68%)
DFML 41.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-1.01%)
DGKC 86.11 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (0.37%)
FCCL 32.56 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.22%)
FFBL 64.38 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (0.55%)
FFL 11.61 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (10.05%)
HUBC 112.46 Increased By ▲ 1.69 (1.53%)
HUMNL 14.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-1.73%)
KEL 5.04 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (3.28%)
KOSM 7.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.21%)
MLCF 40.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-0.47%)
NBP 61.08 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.05%)
OGDC 194.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.69 (-0.35%)
PAEL 26.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-2.18%)
PIBTL 7.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-6.79%)
PPL 152.68 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.1%)
PRL 26.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-1.35%)
PTC 16.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.74%)
SEARL 85.70 Increased By ▲ 1.56 (1.85%)
TELE 7.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-3.64%)
TOMCL 36.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.36%)
TPLP 8.79 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.5%)
TREET 16.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-4.64%)
TRG 62.74 Increased By ▲ 4.12 (7.03%)
UNITY 28.20 Increased By ▲ 1.34 (4.99%)
WTL 1.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-2.9%)
BR100 10,086 Increased By 85.5 (0.85%)
BR30 31,170 Increased By 168.1 (0.54%)
KSE100 94,764 Increased By 571.8 (0.61%)
KSE30 29,410 Increased By 209 (0.72%)

A counsel of one of the PCO judges on Thursday argued before Supreme Court that judges and army generals did not fall in the category of civil society, hence contempt of court proceeding could not be initiated against them.
Advocate Raza Kazim, counsel for Justice Syed Hamid Ali Shah, argued that judges and (army) generals were not considered as civil society members, so contempt of court proceeding could not be initiated against them (judges, generals) unless there was a solid evidence.
A five-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiquie, Justice Jawaad S. Khawaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez was hearing contempt of court case against PCO judges, who had violated the 14-member bench decision on November 3, 20007 by taking oath under PCO.
Dr Abdul Basit, counsel for a PCO judge, objected to formation of the bench, hearing contempt of court cases against the PCO judges, saying that three judges of the bench had an ugly incident with his client, therefore, he wants they should not hear the case.
Dr Khalid Ranjha said that when his client was elevated to the court, the SC had passed many judgements. Defacto Court was considered De jure Court. The judgement of November 3 was law and the judgement of November 6 and 19 were also law, saying that there was a need to accept the judgements of subsequent courts, he contended.
"This case is not against two persons, court or citizens but between the judges, so the apex court must show some restraint in the case," he pleaded. In its July 31, 2009 verdict, the apex court had directed the government to file references in the Supreme Judicial Council against those judges, who had taken oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 and violated the 14-members larger bench judgement against PCO.
However, law ministry did not file any reference against PCO judges in Supreme Judicial Council. The court later issued contempt of court notices to those judges, who had violated November 3, 2007 decision against PCO. Over 60 judges of the superior courts tendered their apologies before the apex court. However 10 judges had not apologised and decided to contest the contempt of court cases, including former Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, Justice Khurshid Bhinder, Justice Hamid Ali Shah, Justice Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Justice Yasmin Abbasi, Justice Jahan Zaib Rahim, Justice Sayed Zahid Hussain and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar. Further hearing of the case was adjourned till today (Wednesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2010

Comments

Comments are closed.