M. Sarmad
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Oct 27, 2013
- 7,125
- 12,879
- Country of Origin
- Country of Residence
Don’t try to run away!
You asked for the clauses which were subverted, suspended, or overstepped by these eight judges. I provided you with a few of those clauses. Now you tell us how the eight judges have responded to the rather grave indirect charges by their peer judges. What I found in their detailed judgement is only the disgraceful person attacks by naming the two judges.
Tell us how the eight judges have proved that they have not subverted, suspended, and overstepped the legal/constitutional clauses they were indirectly accused of.
Again, don’t run away. If you expect a meaningful response from me, then so do I from you. In fact, I will ask you more than this. But let’s first see what you come up with.
I'm not going anywhere, mate. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying. Maybe you missed my post. I already told you that these objections were thoroughly discussed and dismissed in the detailed judgment. I asked you to read it, but you haven't. How can you form an opinion about a judgment you haven’t even read?
That said, if you're up for it, we can go over the clauses one by one. You first claimed that 187(1) was wrongly invoked. But did you know that it's not 8, but actually 11 out of 13 judges (including CJP Qazi Faiz Isa) who believe 187(1) was correctly invoked? Do you really think those 11 Supreme Court judges are wrong, and that you know the Constitution better than them? We can tackle the other clauses after that.