Tehreek-e-Insaf Ka Chief Justice Se PTI Cases Se Alehadgi Ke Mutalbe Par Qanooni Raye Kya Hai??

ARY NEWS

Transcript

00:00 So, next week is filled with important cases,

00:04 those cases which have a direct impact on Pakistan's politics.

00:09 In such cases, especially,

00:11 Chief Justice Pakistan's participation in the bench,

00:15 Pakistan's movement for justice has a different opinion on it.

00:19 Hamid Khan maintains that

00:21 full bench means that,

00:23 full bench, not one judge,

00:25 whether it is Chief Justice of Pakistan or someone else.

00:27 In your opinion, legally,

00:30 the demand of Pakistan for justice,

00:33 that Chief Justice of Pakistan should be separated,

00:36 does it stand or not, considering full bench?

00:40 Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim.

00:41 First of all, when this was constituted for the first time,

00:44 by the bench and the committee,

00:46 it was a three member bench.

00:47 Then they referred Justice Mansoor Ali Shah,

00:51 that you are under section 4 of the larger bench,

00:56 which is of practice and procedure.

00:58 Now, that was a larger bench,

00:59 it should have minimum 5 judges.

01:01 Now, the committee under Chief Justice,

01:02 I don't know what decisions were made in that committee,

01:06 but the decision was of full bench, full court.

01:09 So, see, full court means all judges.

01:11 But the way Chief Justice has made some decisions in the last few days,

01:17 like the decision of Balla,

01:18 now see, the decision of Balla is pending,

01:21 that now he should get seats,

01:23 and if he doesn't get the seats,

01:30 then should his seats be distributed among other parties?

01:34 So, this was the issue.

01:34 But the thing now, I think,

01:37 Jadul sir was saying that it is a good deed,

01:41 but you see, a party has the right to make a decision,

01:46 to give an application,

01:47 or to talk about it,

01:48 separate from the case.

01:50 It happens in that, sometimes judges are made.

01:52 You saw that the case of District Court was filed,

01:55 first Masood Ali Shah was sitting,

01:57 then the government objected to it,

01:58 that you have a relation with Jawahar-e-Sahab,

02:02 Chief Justice Jawahar-e-Sahab,

02:04 so you should separate from the bench,

02:05 and he separated from the bench.

02:06 Do you remember, in the past, when cases were filed,

02:09 then the government used to send applications,

02:11 that Mr. Bandyal and this judge,

02:13 don't listen to him, he is biased.

02:14 So, you see, I mean,

02:16 You are right, you are right, Abid Zubairi sahib.

02:18 But now, listen to one thing,

02:20 what I think is the most important thing,

02:22 that they wrote a letter,

02:24 Chief Justice sahib, to British High Commission,

02:27 in that, the case of Smalley,

02:29 they praised it a lot,

02:30 that we have decided this case according to justice and law,

02:33 take this copy of it.

02:34 So, all these things,

02:35 after that, I think,

02:36 that listening to this case,

02:38 I don't think it was appropriate,

02:41 but naturally, Chief Justice sahib,

02:43 he is his friend,

02:44 no party objects to him or not,

02:46 but this letter that was written,

02:48 after that, I think,

02:49 that they should have considered,

02:51 whether they should listen to the case or not.

02:53 Because, when they heard their own reference,

02:55 then their lawyers had objected to the two judges,

02:58 that there is a chance of becoming Chief Justice,

03:01 in which Justice Shahzad ul Ahsan was there,

03:03 and Justice Tariq Basu.

03:04 So, they separated from the bench,

03:05 in reference to Justice Farid ul Sahab.

03:07 Judge sahib will remember this.

03:09 So, all these things.

03:11 Right, but Mr. Zubairi sahib,

03:12 now the problem is,

03:13 that you have referred those issues,

03:16 which PMLN used to raise,

03:17 when their own decisions were not made.

03:20 We see this in PTI also,

03:21 when their own decisions are not made.

03:23 Now, in the case of Balle,

03:24 there were many other incidents,

03:26 in the case of Balle,

03:27 Mr. Zubairi sahib,

03:28 No, see,

03:29 the objections that they had,

03:31 they raised them,

03:33 saying that,

03:34 we think,

03:35 judges,

03:36 from the bench constitution,

03:37 we know what the decision is,

03:38 but the case that was brought before them,

03:40 it was an election case,

03:41 in which elections were to be held on the 90th day,

03:43 they decided that it should be done on the 90th day,

03:45 this was according to the law.

03:47 But, you see,

03:48 here, it is a matter,

03:50 that the party has come to a decision,

03:51 because of which,

03:52 the party has taken a symbol.

03:53 For the first time,

03:54 there is a party's election,

03:55 in other parties,

03:56 elections have been held or not,

03:57 they have no election commission,

03:59 they do not have an election commission,

04:01 and what has happened with that party,

04:03 after that,

04:04 they genuinely feel that,

04:05 they will not get justice,

04:06 in that way,

04:07 from the judges.

04:08 Right,

04:09 but,

04:10 the fact of the matter is,

04:11 that those judges,

04:12 those honourable judges,

04:13 are a part of the court,

04:14 and we have to see.

04:15 Jaddun sir.

04:16 Every judge is a part of the court.

04:18 The judge who had to give a verdict,

04:20 on the case of Iddat,

04:22 he, from the government,

04:23 and his husband,

04:24 he got an objection from them,

04:26 that the lawyer,

04:27 is also from the party,

04:28 with which Jaddun sir is related,

04:29 who was saying,

04:30 that he is related to the party,

04:31 so he is the lawyer.

04:32 So,

04:33 so,

04:34 so,

04:35 on a personal note,

04:36 on a personal note,

04:37 in Bukhara,

04:38 yes,

04:39 overall,

04:40 Bukhara,

04:41 is a very important part of Pakistan's way of thinking,

04:43 and the politics has made it so,

04:44 that sometimes,

04:45 it becomes very difficult to draw a line,

04:47 unfortunately.

04:48 But,

04:49 at this time,

04:50 there is another case,

04:51 Jaddun sir,

04:52 and that is the case of the insult to the court,

04:53 Faisal Wada,

04:54 and Mustafa Kamal sir,

04:55 were called to the court,

04:56 that case will be on 5th June.

04:57 In all this,

04:58 do you think,

04:59 that the politicians,

05:00 should leave their,

05:01 parliament domain,

05:02 and instead of bringing all the matters,

05:03 to the courts,

05:04 they should solve it in the parliament?

05:05 Because,

05:06 here,

05:07 the common people,

05:08 are not able to,

05:09 to understand,

05:10 the politics,

05:11 and the politics,

05:12 that is,

05:13 here,

05:14 there are cases of common Pakistanis,

05:15 when the cases of politicians come,

05:16 they become important,

05:17 of course,

05:18 because,

05:19 the politics of the country,

05:20 stops in that,

05:21 and the cases of common Pakistanis,

05:22 stop.

05:23 This is definitely,

05:24 exactly like that,

05:25 as of today,

05:26 58,000 cases,

05:27 are pending in the Supreme Court,

05:28 and the pendency,

05:29 is increasing day by day.

05:30 Now,

05:31 the case,

05:32 will sit in the full court,

05:33 even if it sits after 11,

05:34 but,

05:35 a time,

05:36 a lot of time,

05:37 passes in these cases,

05:38 and the court,

05:39 will decide,

05:40 that the case,

05:41 will sit in the full court,

05:42 and the other cases,

05:43 of the common people,

05:44 or even the murder,

05:45 the murder references,

05:46 are pending in the Supreme Court,

05:47 so,

05:48 there is definitely an impact,

05:49 that the political cases,

05:50 have priority,

05:51 if they are not taken up,

05:52 then the political parties,

05:53 start the work,

05:54 that our cases are not taken up,

05:55 our important cases,

05:56 of the government,

05:57 so,

05:58 when they are taken up,

05:59 definitely,

06:00 the tilt,

06:01 the media also picks it up,

06:02 sometimes,

06:03 you have seen,

06:04 live streaming has also started,

06:05 so,

06:06 the political parties,

06:07 the cases,

06:08 now,

06:09 see,

06:10 one thing is,

06:11 that,

06:12 whatever case,

06:13 of the constitutional interpretation,

06:14 in that,

06:15 the political parties,

06:16 definitely have a stake,

06:17 like,

06:18 in the morning,

06:19 you have,

06:20 we have just,

06:21 discussed,

06:22 argued,

06:23 that,

06:24 the case of the reserved seats,

06:25 so,

06:26 in this,

06:27 the interpretation of the,

06:28 constitution,

06:29 and the law,

06:30 election act,

06:31 2017,

06:32 is also there,

06:33 and,

06:34 along with that,

06:35 the government,

06:36 and the opposition,

06:37 both have a high stake,

06:38 in these seats,

06:39 and,

06:40 they can also interpret it,

06:41 if they don't get it,

06:42 then,

06:43 in the parliament,

06:44 the constitutional amendment,

06:45 is difficult,

06:46 in the senate also,

06:47 their seats are not equal,

06:48 so,

06:49 the importance of these seats,

06:50 is very high,

06:51 as far as,

06:52 you have discussed,

06:53 the contempt,

06:54 I have already,

06:55 requested,

06:56 your CFP,

06:57 that,

06:58 whenever,

06:59 a decision is made,

07:00 against political parties,

07:01 then,

07:02 they use contemptuous language,

07:03 some judges,

07:04 are very liberal,

07:05 they say,

07:06 like,

07:07 one of the judges,

07:08 used contemptuous language,

07:09 it's okay,

07:10 but,

07:11 there is an institution,

07:12 and its respect,

07:13 is,

07:14 all,

07:15 the political parties,

07:16 whether they are,

07:17 common citizens,

07:18 it is necessary,

07:19 the reason for that is,

07:20 that you,

07:21 in the judgement,

07:22 you criticize,

07:23 thank you very much,

Category

Transcript

Recommended