"Rules of SC will be determined by Supreme Court itself," Salman Akram Raja

ARY NEWS

Transcript

00:00 The argument that I think hinges on the case is that did the parliament have the power to legislate or not?

00:11 Does the parliament have the complete power?

00:13 One side of the judges believe this.

00:15 The other side of the judges, who have already given the stay order,

00:21 believe that the parliament cannot have the power to legislate or not.

00:31 If you want to do this, then the judges should do it themselves.

00:34 The judges of Pakistan should do it themselves.

00:36 The parliament cannot have the power.

00:38 This is the point that has been discussed the most.

00:40 I will ask Mr. Rai and then come back to you.

00:42 Mr. Rai, is that what the larger point will be?

00:44 Is this the real point that will be discussed?

00:46 Or is it being discussed?

00:48 There are two things in this.

00:52 One is that the committee that has been formed in the Procedure and Powers Act,

00:58 that the Chief Justice will not form it himself, but three senior judges will form the benches,

01:04 is this in accordance with Article 191 of the Constitution,

01:08 which has been given the power to legislate or make rules?

01:14 If you look at Article 191 of the Constitution, it says that the procedural matters of the Supreme Court

01:22 will be in accordance with the Constitution, the law and the rules that the Supreme Court makes.

01:29 The debate today was that the word 'law' that has been used in Article 191,

01:35 does it include the law made by the parliament?

01:39 Law versus Act of Parliament, which has been repeated.

01:42 Yes, this debate has been going on that the meaning of law was said by the lawyers of the petitioners,

01:48 that the judge who gives the judgment is also included in the law.

01:54 A convention or a usage, which we say is a procedure,

01:59 which is being carried out, is also considered to be law.

02:03 So the question then was that the word that has been used in Article 191 of the Constitution,

02:09 we should consider that the parliament has been excluded from it,

02:13 that the constitution made by the parliament was not considered in Article 191.

02:20 This was an important question and in my view, the answer to it is not so difficult,

02:25 but still, it is being discussed.

02:27 What is the answer in your view?

02:29 Look, in my opinion, it is very difficult to distinguish that the word 'law'

02:34 has been used in Article 191, and the law made by the parliament is not included in it.

02:40 If we look at the article 4 of the Constitution,

02:44 which says that you will not put anyone's life or property on the law except the law,

02:51 then the word 'law' is also written there.

02:53 So does that law then exclude the law made by the parliament?

02:59 So it is very difficult for me to say that the word 'law' has been used in Article 191,

03:06 and the parliamentary law is not included in it, but I cannot say anything definitive about it.

03:11 The second matter was that the right to appeal was given by the parliament under what constitutional power?

03:23 The decision in Article 184, which is an original jurisdiction,

03:29 the Supreme Court hears the case directly, the Supreme Court is the first court and the last court,

03:35 so the right to appeal against that decision, is it in accordance with the Constitution?

03:41 Now, the debate on this issue was that the fourth statute of the Constitution,

03:46 which gives the power to the judiciary,

03:50 has an entry number 55,

03:53 which says that the Supreme Court can increase the powers of the judiciary,

04:00 but only to the extent that the Constitution clearly allows it.

04:06 Now, has the right to appeal been clearly allowed?

04:11 And the question was asked here that can another appeal be given with one appeal?

04:15 But that was said as an example.

04:20 Yes, that was said as an example that the right to appeal under Article 184 gives the right to appeal,

04:25 where you bring a case from the High Court,

04:28 the appeal from the High Court comes under Article 185 in the Supreme Court,

04:33 so it is understood that this is a definitive appeal.

04:37 So can you make a law tomorrow and take a new appeal other than the 185 appeal?

04:43 This is a very important question.

04:46 Where there is no appeal in the Constitution, can the Supreme Court give the right to appeal through common legislation?

04:53 Article 184.3 does not give any appeal, so can appeal be given through legislation?

05:00 The debate was that Article 55 of the Constitution has a clause that says "and supplemental powers",

05:06 that is, that power can also be given to the Supreme Court, which is the given or the established power,

05:13 you can say that it is really a power, supplemental or the power to give it.

05:19 It also has an extension.

05:21 Yes, now in that regard, the judges who apparently support this law,

05:27 they said that the right to appeal is in a way the process that is going on first,

05:32 the process that is being carried out, it is the order of that.

05:36 Therefore, if it is seen in the context of the clause "and supplemental powers",

05:41 then the Parliament has the right to appeal.

05:44 But the court will obviously make a decision on this.

05:47 I come back to a question.

05:49 The law of NAB, which has been striked down many things, do you think it will be reviewed?

05:55 Yes, it will be reviewed and should be reviewed.

05:59 Because there are 3-4 amendments in it which are called the draconian law.

06:04 For example, 90 days, wherever you go to see in criminal jurisprudence,

06:10 the maximum physical remand given there is 14 days.

06:15 Now you are doing 19 days.

06:17 And what, why?

06:18 30 days were done with the law.

06:21 No, it was 15, after 15 it was 30 days again.

06:24 But the challenge has been 15 days.

06:27 In the intervening period, it was 15 to 30 days.

06:30 That is also something in its place.

06:32 If one of you is stuck, then at least do three speeches.

06:37 This is what Mr. Imran Khan said in his speech, he did not challenge in his request.

06:42 He did not challenge.

06:43 So it has been 15 days, 30 days is still there.

06:46 The purpose of saying is that, okay, then one more important thing,

06:50 whatever I think is completely against criminal jurisprudence,

06:54 that I am a NAB, I am accusing Kashif Abbasi,

06:58 Kashif sir, you have done so much.

07:01 Now Kashif Abbasi has to prove, no, no, I am innocent.

07:05 This is not a criminal law at all.

07:07 Sir, stop, stop here.

07:09 Listen to me.

07:11 You look at,

07:12 The unexplained wealth order, the British law,

07:15 Sir, listen to me.

07:16 You should have listened to me completely.

07:18 I have listened.

07:19 You are saying that if NAB accuses someone,

07:22 then NAB should prove it, not the individual.

07:25 Okay, listen to me.

07:27 I am saying, listen to me completely.

07:30 Look, there are special circumstances in Pakistan.

07:33 And it has been settled that NAB is being used for political engineering.

07:38 And time and again, the Supreme Court, the benches have declared that this is political engineering.

Recommended

Category

Transcript

Recommended