Kya Do Judges Ka Ikhtalafi Note Makhsoos Nashiston Ke Faislay Par Assar Andaaz Ho Sakta Hai?

ARY NEWS

Transcript

00:00Is it a routine thing for a judge to write a controversial note when there are no detailed decisions yet?

00:07No, it has happened many times that the minority judgment comes first and the majority comes later.

00:12In the case of Qazi Faisal's review, the minority judgment came first and the majority came later.

00:18But in this dissenting note, two or three things were unusual.

00:22The Supreme Court judges are saying that the majority judgment has been rephrased and rewritten.

00:39They are also saying that when there is a minority judgment,

00:43not just a minority judgment, but any minority judgment,

00:46the institution is not bound to implement it.

00:50So this is an impression that they are talking about this decision

00:55that this decision is non-binary and the election commission should act on it.

00:59But what difference will it make to the decision of two judges?

01:02But if even one judge says that the majority judgment is non-binary and it should not be accepted,

01:07then I think that even if the Prime Minister has been sent home in the past,

01:13but the decisions have been implemented.

01:15On this decision, whatever their point of view was, they said that the PTI was not in front,

01:23how did the Sunni Council get the PTI seats?

01:27But where is it written in this that you have given 78 seats in the Mal-e-Karima Noon and People's Party.

01:33Where did the law point justification come from?

01:36I have also seen that the decision of 13th January, which is the main one, is not mentioned.

01:40Then a review is being said that the review has been filed and the review is pending and it will be infructious.

01:45This is the development that has come in detailed reasoning.

01:49This is what Qazi Faisal says that the review will be infructious.

01:52This is what the two judges are saying.

01:54So there is a method.

01:56See, this is not the case at the moment.

01:58It is not a legal matter.

01:59At the moment, judicial politics and national politics are linked up.

02:02Judicial package, constitution amendment.

02:04See, if the government gets the remaining 78 seats,

02:07the government has no problem.

02:08If the PTI gets it, the government has a problem that the government will be able to do the constitution amendment.

02:12PTI has no benefit.

02:14The judicial package on which there is very little talk from the government and from all sides.

02:20But the real issue, the focus is on the constitution amendment.

02:26And all the work is on the constitution amendment.

02:30Judicial package.

02:31We can see this central fight, Imran.

02:34See, what our colleagues are saying about this decision.

02:39It is very interesting.

02:40Before that, let me set it for you.

02:43The vlogs that people are watching now.

02:46I have heard very interesting things.

02:48There is a lot of criticism.

02:50How did this happen?

02:51Who wrote the decision?

02:52Someone else has written this decision.

02:54You must have seen all this.

02:55You must have seen.

02:56No, absolutely.

02:57There is a lot of talk in the vlogs.

02:58But the point is that the point on which the disagreement is being made,

03:03there is no justification for it.

03:07Now, if two judges are saying and disagreeing with the decision,

03:11that the majority decision is irregular, it is illegal.

03:15Article 51, in which a whole formula has been given,

03:19how you will get special seats,

03:22that political party will be able to get,

03:24who must have won an election.

03:26And then there is section 104.

03:28Section 104 is about when you have to get special seats.

03:32Now the judges who are going to write the disagreement note,

03:35they are saying that when this decision has been written,

03:37in this you have Article 51, you have sectioned section 104,

03:42and Article 63A.

03:43You have done everything against it.

03:45If you had suspended this,

03:47But this is the decision of two judges.

03:49No, no.

03:50Does it matter?

03:51You are absolutely right.

03:52The decision is of two judges.

03:54Pervail will only make the decision of eight judges.

03:56But the debate on this,

03:58then this debate is not happening.

04:00They are saying that why did the judges write this decision?

04:02If they are disagreeing with the majority judges,

04:04they are doing it on this basis.

04:06But I have heard that people say that a detailed judgment will come,

04:09we will see their arguments,

04:11what evidence do they give that if there was no prayer of PTI,

04:14then why were seats given to PTI?

04:17First you will see what they say,

04:19after that you will disagree with that decision.

04:21I disagree with this argument.

04:23You have already disagreed.

04:25Give me two minutes.

04:27The most important thing in this is that

04:29when you are disagreeing with the decision,

04:31you are giving your own reasoning.

04:33And this reasoning has been given by the judge in a different note,

04:36which is a brief judgment of July 12,

04:38read it and give it to him.

04:40The judge has written in his note that

04:42because the detailed reasoning has not come yet,

04:44which has been talked about being non-existent,

04:46if given a chance, I will also talk about it.

04:48But the judges are saying that

04:50you have rewritten the law in a way,

04:52you could not have done this,

04:54so how can they say this in the end?

04:56That when it is a non-constitutional decision,

04:58after writing all this,

05:00they say that the administration should act on this non-constitutional decision.

05:03This is not possible, it is not possible.

05:05We are also sitting in a private gathering,

05:07so we have this opinion.

05:09I remember when I came to this profession,

05:11I heard a sentence, unholy haste.

05:13And this is my condition,

05:15this sentence was written for the first time

05:17at the sale of steel mill.

05:20Why is there so much unholy haste?

05:22Do you think this argument is right?

05:24What was the hurry?

05:26When Hamza Shahbazshif got 25 votes in the Punjab government,

05:29he disqualified 25 people.

05:31No, Mr. Imran Khan had sent a reference to the Election Commission.

05:34His appeal came to the Supreme Court.

05:36During this time, the 20 years that were vacant,

05:38elections were held there.

05:40And when he was elected,

05:42then his appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of those 25 people who were disqualified.

05:45So what did the Supreme Court say?

05:47That your appeal has been invalidated.

05:49Elections have been held on the votes of your colleagues.

05:51So now there is no reason to hear your appeal.

05:53So the same case is being made here too.

05:55If it is done, then what will happen?

05:57If it is implemented, then how will you reverse it?

Category

Transcript

Recommended