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