Parliamentary proceedings unchallengeable: Justice Jawwad S Khawaja

July 26th, 2012 by | 3 Comments |

SC Justice Jawwad S Khawaja on Thursday said that the Supreme Court could review the debate held in parliament, adding that parliamentary proceedings couldn’t be challenged in any court of law.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry resumed the hearing of identical petitions against the recently passed Contempt Of Court Act 2012.

On directives of the apex court, the record of the parliamentary debate on Contempt Of Court Act has been presented in the Supreme Court.

During the course of hearing, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja was of the opinion that the parliamentary proceedings ware protected under Article 69 of the Constitution. He noted, “The discussion is revealing too much about the legislation of such a law”.

The judge, however, inquired regarding the motivation behind the drafting of the law, saying that the parliamentary debate was revealing with respect to the new law’s legislating process.

Petitioner Ahsanuddin Sheikh while continuing his arguments before the bench read out the record of the parliamentary debate over the Contempt of Court Act.

In his view, the parliament had given the approval to the new law in a hurried and didn’t have authority to curtail the powers of the judiciary.

Earlier on Wednesday, the bench remarked that the opposition should have resisted the passage of the new contempt law instead of walking out of parliament, the Senate and National Assembly.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry noted, “The opposition should have stayed in the parliament to resist the ruling party’s move”.

Analysts believe that only a couple of clauses of Contempt of Court Act 2012 appeared to be areas of concerns for the court. One is pertaining to immunity for public office holders against contempt of court proceedings while the other is about an automatic stay on the filing of an appeal.

They were of the view that the court might send back the two controversial clauses to the parliament for review.

In a bid to protect the incumbent prime minister from facing the same fate as his predecessor, the Contempt of Court Act 2012 had been passed in a rush by the government.

It gives exemption to holders of public office from the mischief of contempt in exercise of powers and performance of functions and allows for suspension of a sentence during the pendency of an appeal.

 

Leave a Reply

  • Comment by Jan Khan: ( July 27th, 2012 at 11:18 am )

    I personally not in favour of the contempt of court law and wants thta this law be scrabed and the protection given to judges be withdrawn. The Judges may be punished for wrong decisions and there should be some law to remove the judges of Supreme court/ high courts. Furthermore, these judges should not hear those cases in which they are party. It is the jungle law to hear and decide their own cases. Furthermore, the judges are to be selected by the Public Service Commision in BPS-17 and then promoted. Direct recruitment of the judges as Addl. Session Judges by the High Courts and udges of high/ supreme courts be stopped as in this case merit is not followed and sifarashi judges by the so called superior judiciary are selected.


  • Comment by Jan Khan: ( July 27th, 2012 at 10:44 am )

    I agree. The contempt of court is not a good law and no one like it. It may be thrashed altogather as in Islam such a law dose not exist. Furtrhermore, it is against the basic fundamental rights not to proest a decsion which doen not appeal to some one and is baised decision. If these judges have the grudes against some one or to please their masters and want to equal the score then they should come openly and not in the gar of the bloody court. They should resign and join the TTP or some other out fit to avenge. This law should go so that in the courts human rights could be followed and the taxpayers in the courts are not disgarced by these be-iman Judges. Furthermore, these judges are Government Servants and should not play in the hands of politicians. If they want to play politics, then they should resign ande join the party of Sharif brothers, Imran Kehan or JI or JUA or make their own party. But not pal with the prestige of the country beacuse their satanic acts are liked by european and they are ewarded in recognition of their services against the country. They are sailing in the same boat as Mukhtaran Mai, Shameen Obaid chinoy and many more who are selling their country for pitty things.


  • Comment by Huma Bano: ( July 27th, 2012 at 10:28 am )

    I am of the opinion that the contempt of court clause is there to protect the in competent judges and the bad decisions. This clause be thrashed so that these bloody judges should also face the music as other Government Servants are facing. It is also agianst the human rights not to raise voice against the decision of the judges. It is worth mentioning that all the decsions taken by the courts are biased and merit is not followed. The juudges also have their Pasand na Pasand, it should be but not be at the cost of tax payers. This law should go so that these bloody judges could be exposed. This law protects the judges who have been selected on recommendations of some one commission or else. Furthermore, the degrees and birth date of Iftikhar Chudry be also verified mbecause he is fraudy no.1 and is not serving on fake degrees/ scertificates.