If only the Proceedings of the Full Court Were Not Broadcast Live... Supreme Court Judges are Responsible...

From simple generations like you and me, it was assumed that honorable judges do not have personal views and preferences. If any matter is put before them, they pay full attention to the arguments presented in support and opposition with an open mind. After the arguments are completed, they sit in isolation and judge the arguments presented in front of them only on the criteria of the constitution and the law. . This fact has come out rather openly that the judges of the highest court have already formed their opinion about the matter which is being examined by the full court of the Supreme Court these days. There is no scope for taking the middle path through this path divided into extremes.The phrase "perpetuating the illusion" has been written and heard by others many times. The importance of this phrase, but in a very concrete way, was discovered by directly watching the proceedings of the full bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. While watching this proceedings, many times the desire arose in my heart that if the Honorable Chief Justice sir, our highest Avoid introducing the tradition of showing court proceedings live on television screens.

When watching the live proceedings of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was often forced to think that if the proceedings had been confined to a closed room, perhaps a few honorable judges would have formed their opinion and after hearing the arguments against their opinion from the lawyers. Willing to approach thinking. Thanks to the TV screens, thousands if not millions of people are now well aware of the thinking of judges divided into two different groups. Among them, a group is insisting that the law that was made to curb the powers of the Chief Justice during the Shahbaz government was an interference in the independence and autonomy of the court. were The other group of Hon'ble Judges, however, are admitting with honest reluctance that the Chief Justices of the past, while taking advantage of the automatic powers, were arbitrarily arbitrarily with a magnanimous disposition. Gradually to achieve the judicial decisions of your choice.

Being an ordinary and powerless citizen of Pakistan, I, the two-point reporter, cannot determine which of the above-mentioned groups is right. While saving my life, I would like to state that Iftikhar Chaudhary returned to the position of Chief Justice in 2009 thanks to the so-called people's movement and took many such measures on his own which made the parliament elected by the people weaker and weaker. It proved to be a haven for "thieves and looters". Chaudhary also introduced the tradition of dismissing the elected Prime Minister in the name of contempt of court. Taking advantage of this tradition, in 2017, Saqib Nisar's Supreme Court defiantly enjoined Pakistan's third-term prime minister from "providing receipts" based on the Panama Papers. In order to check the financial affairs of Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court also formed an investigation team consisting of state institutions. The military institutions were also represented in this team.

According to our written constitution, the Prime Minister, who is called the "Chief Executive", appeared as an accused for several days in front of officers who were accountable to the "Chief Executive" for their performance. Those who have the right to monitor the performance of their subordinates were faced with the appearance of sinners. In the end, Nawaz Sharif was disqualified for life for any public position because of "Iqama" and not Panama. Later, one of the Supreme Court. And due to the materials collected by the investigation team under the direct supervision of the Honorable Judge, cases were conducted in the accountability courts. Mian Sahib was sentenced and sent to jail along with his daughter. But she was released from jail on the basis of ill health and was first sent to a hospital and later to London. The sentence against Maryam Nawaz was later declared "illegal".

Perhaps I would not have been surprised and disturbed if the matter had been limited to giving morsels to the lawyers or tiring them out. The ongoing division has become more obvious in front of the people. Seeing all this, I thought many times that I wish the Chief Justice had not taken the step of showing the proceedings of the full bench directly. The "illusion" could have been maintained for many more years.

The tradition of forming a bench consisting of "like-minded judges" was established. The decisions that came due to such benches supported one side in a politics divided into blind hatred and faith. Due to this, the political turmoil started to get worse in our country. To save matters from further deterioration, it is imperative that the Chief Justice's powers be limited. Instead of taking up a matter on his own, he should take steps in this regard after consulting his two senior fellow judges. The committee consisting of the three most senior judges including the Chief Justice should also play a key role in the bench formation so that the parties appearing before the High Court would see "justice done". The powers of the judge should be limited. Instead of taking up a case on his own, he should take steps in this regard after consulting his two senior fellow judges. The committee consisting of the three most senior judges including the Chief Justice should also play a key role in the bench formation so that the parties appearing before the High Court would see "justice done". The powers of the judge should be limited. Instead of taking up a case on his own, he should take steps in this regard after consulting his two senior fellow judges. The committee consisting of the three most senior judges including the Chief Justice should also play a key role in the bench formation so that the parties appearing before the High Court would see "justice done".

 

 

Iftikhar Chaudhary and Saqib Nisar were elected by the Supreme Court, due to which there was scope for curbing the powers of the Chief Justice. The most important aspect is that the person directly disqualified for public office by the Supreme Court also loses the right to appeal against the decision against him. The opportunity to appeal was available. Even if Imran Khan was disqualified from participating in the election due to the cases conducted by the trial court under Cipher etc., he could expect relief from not one but two courts, namely the High Court and the Supreme Court. Are In the past, due to the magnanimous powers of the Chief Justice, the detailed mention of the justices was heard during the proceedings which were shown live on Shahzah TV screens. can interfere in the "administrative matters" of the Supreme Court through the If he is not heard, he is relieved by frequent questions. Sometimes the lawyer supporting his opinion is also provided with an "argument" through a "question".