SC rebukes ‘misconceived’ ECP clarification request, orders immediate implentation of reserved seats verdict

[Cipher212]

Lao jee, those dishonest eight judges of supreme court have finally kicked the bomb due to their sheer stupidity. Their inner imranduism have forced them to overstep the judges’ code of conduct, law clauses, and constitutional articles. They have been acting as boars in China shop.

In their uncontrolled pursuit of political goals, these eight judges issued a warning of serious consequences if their earlier verdict was not implemented in a four-page statement about eight days ago. This statement came out in response to a miscellaneous application filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on reserved seats.

Now the chief justice of Pakistan has demanded answers from the supreme court registrar office for nine questions in response to the explanation provided by eight judges in the case.

The gang of those eight imrandu judges have apparently committed a serious breach of the judges conduct, their oath, and articles of constitution. They are clearly guilty of misconduct and that is an extremely grave violation that a judge can commit.

The boars in China shop have finally trapped themselves with unlawful, dishonest, non-impartial, and rogue conduct. I can see their case finally heading towards the judicial commission’s proceedings.

Anyone else enjoying watching this guy cry? He thinks he knows more than a total 8 Supreme court judges

 

[M. Sarmad]

I thought it was a common sense or a matter of basic public awareness.

SIC represented the case against the state

The judges asked who are you representing PTI or SIC. The SIC stated SIC only. The judges inquired if anybody is representing PTI and nobody came forward.

The proceedings began, the case was about 80 independent candidates. None of them were presented in the court or heard about their stance whether they were part of the PTI or not.

The case was decided in favour of the party which SIC did not own during their live proceedings in the court and the 41 MNAs who did not file anything about PTI were declared PTI without hearing them.

I am sure all of us followed the proceedings so it’s not rocket science. Even the PTI lawyers including Hamid Khan and Salman Akram Raja were asked that how did the Supreme Court reached this shocking conclusion and they said, we guess they used article 185 of complete justice and we are confident that they will mention article 185 the detailed judgement to justify this act.

I am not saying this judgement is wrong, PTI deserved these seats but on the basis of fairness, my guess is that is why the detailed judgement has not been made public despite 3 months past as they want to give the legal ground. The judges clearly acknowledgment the malafide intentions of the government and gave the justice like a “Qazi” and not like the judges of the Supreme Court.

My question wasn't about the merits of the judgment, or lack thereof, but rather about your claim that the eight judges breached the Constitution. Therefore, I am asking which specific section or clause you believe was violated. While everyone has the right to criticize or disagree/agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, that's beside the point

 

[Mr X]

Anyone else enjoying watching this guy cry? He thinks he knows more than a total 8 Supreme court judges

Well no matter who says what, the final verdict is what the Supreme Court says.

If anybody is unwilling to follow the Supreme Court, it is an act of treason, no matter how sacred they are, be it the Prime Minister, Chief election commissioner or the Army Chief. They should ideally be disqualified from their positions immediately or at least feel embarrassed to be a traitor and don’t come back to give us a lecture of patriotism.

 

[Mr X]

My question wasn't about the merits of the judgment, or lack thereof, but rather about your claim that the eight judges breached the Constitution. Therefore, I am asking which specific section or clause you believe was violated. While everyone has the right to criticize or disagree/agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, that's beside the point

Sir I have already explained the breach of common law. In the court practice if A and B file a dispute, the matter is settled in favour of A or B, not in favour of C or R because of the personal desire of the judge.

PTI refused to be party in the case so they couldn’t have been the beneficiaries

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir I have already explained the breach of common law. In the court practice if A and B file a dispute, the matter is settled in favour of A or B, not in favour of C or R because of the personal desire of the judge.

PTI refused to be party in the case so they couldn’t have been the beneficiaries

With all due respect, sir, a perceived violation of common law is not the same as a breach of the Constitution..... And the flaw, even in this line of reasoning, lies in the fact that it is the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution and define the law. A ruling by the Supreme Court establishes precedent and, in essence, becomes law; it does not operate in the manner you seem to imply.

 

[PakFactor]

Anyone else enjoying watching this guy cry? He thinks he knows more than a total 8 Supreme court judges

I wonder if that user is Maryuam masquerading as a male; at the rate that user is moaning.

 

[Mr X]

With all due respect, sir, a perceived violation of common law is not the same as a breach of the Constitution..... And the flaw, even in this line of reasoning, lies in the fact that it is the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution and define the law. A ruling by the Supreme Court establishes precedent and, in essence, becomes law; it does not operate in the manner you seem to imply.

The law is derived from the constitution. The end result is whatever the SC judgement says.. even if wrong.. it is binding and must be followed.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The law is derived from the constitution.

I would like to provide some clarification on this matter..... Common law in Pakistan is derived from English common law, supplemented by local statutes and judicial precedents. It is applied in contexts not explicitly governed by statutory law or the Constitution. While common law can influence judicial decisions, it is ultimately subordinate to the Constitution...

 

[prothought]

Anyone else enjoying watching this guy cry? He thinks he knows more than a total 8 Supreme court judges

Well, I cannot fly a plane. But if I see some idiot is trying to do that, I can certainly tell that idiot is f*cking liar and trying to cheat. That's what these imrandu judges are trying to do, i.e. f*cking the law and constitution.