Supreme Court  Announce Article 63-A verdict | Shehzad Shaukat's Analysis - video Dailymotion

ARY NEWS

#supremecourt #article63a #qazifaezisa #ShehzadShaukat #ShehbazKhosa  #pti #pmlngovt #11thhour #waseembadami #cjpqazifaezisa    Supreme Court  Announce Article 63-A verdict | Shehzad Shaukat's Analysis

Transcript

00:00Mr. Shehzad, please give us your opinion.

00:02They are simplifying it by saying that he is a legislator.

00:07He is a legislator, he is a parliamentarian.

00:10The Supreme Court is the one who legislates that law.

00:11He legislated it. What is so great about it?

00:15So, you disagree with this basic principle that the Supreme Court doesn't have to legislate the law?

00:20Yes, it is correct that the law has to be legislated.

00:23The law has to be legislated.

00:25Mr. Khosla said that where the law is silent,

00:32then the Supreme Court can supply the silence or the absence of something.

00:43In the language of the law, it is called casus omasis.

00:47That is, if the legislature forgets to do something,

00:53then the Supreme Court or the High Courts have the power to supply the omission.

00:59And the judgment that I am referring to,

01:02the 2021 Supreme Court,

01:06in that the Supreme Court said that the principle of casus omasis

01:11is not applied to the law.

01:15If there is an omission in the law,

01:17then only the legislature can supply it.

01:21Now, after saying this, five judges,

01:24how could the majority judgment of three judges be deviated from that judgment?

01:29This is the first thing.

01:30The second thing is that this is not just one judgment.

01:33Look, the legislature has decided in its wisdom

01:39that you will only be punished if you vote against party discipline.

01:44Now, only the parliament had the right to add to it.

01:50Now, let me also say that there are many laws in the world

01:54in which this punishment has been placed on floor crossing.

01:58Pakistan is the only country in which,

02:01although the legislature did not do it,

02:04but the Supreme Court of Pakistan introduced a unique concept

02:08that this vote should not be counted.

02:12There is no country in the world

02:15where in the crime of floor crossing,

02:19you are de-seated and your vote is not counted.

02:23That is, you did not commit a crime,

02:25you were stopped from committing a crime,

02:27and you were also punished.

02:29This logic, at least as a very humble student of law,

02:33is out of my understanding.

02:35Look, there is a definite reality.

02:37The reality is that the parliament, after a lot of deliberation,

02:43brings an opinion in the 18th amendment.

02:46If you do not like the opinion,

02:48you were in the government, you would have amended it.

02:51No, now discuss and amend the amendment that is available.

02:56And let me also tell you that for ten years in this country,

03:00there was a tendency in the amendment

03:02that if you bring no confidence against the Prime Minister,

03:06if you are from the same party,

03:08then your vote will not be counted.

03:10That was a sunset clause.

03:12The Constitutional Court of India said

03:14that after ten years, the application of this amendment will be terminated.

03:17This means that the Constitutional Court of India knew

03:21that we are allowing the vote to be counted after ten years.

03:26Let me conclude this.

03:30First of all, you tell me, Mr. Shahbaz,

03:33you are also the Additional Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar.

03:36You are the President, Mr. Shehzad.

03:38Does this mean that the application that was filed,

03:41the Supreme Court Bar,

03:43is it not a coincidence that you filed an application

03:45to be a member of the Supreme Court?

03:47You are the Additional Secretary, but your opinion is different.

03:50So, what does this mean?

03:52Wasn't this application filed as a member of the Supreme Court?

03:55This application was filed in the previous cabinet.

03:58Mr. Ahsan Boon was its President.

04:00It was probably a coincidence.

04:02Our President controls the majority.

04:06And our President was following it.

04:09Our views are independent.

04:11The thing is that the Cases cannot be normally supplied

04:15in the Constitution.

04:17The Supreme Court or any court should not normally make a gap.

04:20But where there is a lot of money,

04:23where in the Sindh House, the MPAs are filled with money,

04:27Yes, but you should change the Constitution

04:30while looking at the situation.

04:32The Supreme Court should make a decision according to the Constitution.

04:36Or should the Supreme Court look at the situation?

04:38Because your interpretation of the situation

04:40can be different from mine.

04:42You are absolutely right.

04:44The Constitution could have been made.

04:46But right now, there is no Constitutional Institution.

04:48And when there is no Constitutional Institution,

04:50then the Constitution is made by the Supreme Court.

04:53And the Supreme Court will never make such a decision

04:56Your Constitutional Institution means

04:58an assembly whose prime objective is to make the Constitution.

05:01Is this what you are saying?

05:03Yes, it is called the Constituent Assembly.

05:05And that assembly is such an assembly

05:07on which all the countries agree.

05:09Here, there is an assembly

05:11on which half of the countries

05:13call it the Form 47 Assembly.

05:15And the majority does not accept it.

05:17Today, if you count the numbers,

05:19there are no numbers at all.

05:21Sir, according to this definition,

05:23the Supreme Court had an objection

05:25that it is an RTS assembly.

05:27In Pakistan, every election has been controversial.

05:30And sir, very humbly,

05:32you have to see

05:34how this case was handled,

05:36how the judges were isolated,

05:38its urgency,

05:40the utility of this case is over.

05:43Neither Hamza Shahbaz has to become the Chief Minister,

05:46nor Parvez Elahi has to become the Chief Minister.

05:49If you and I had taken this case to the Supreme Court,

05:52we would have been fined

05:54for wasting the court's time.

05:56Why? In this case,

05:58Nazir-e-Sani is a very common thing.

06:00It is not at all common.

06:02There is not even a 1% chance of Nazir-e-Sani.

06:05One in a thousand may be accepted.

06:07And this is such a decision

06:09which was logical.

06:11And you had closed the door

06:13of horse trading in the court.

06:15Today, this decision came

06:17and you saw that there are many parties

06:19who say that we have to decide

06:21on this matter.

06:23So, this could have been reviewed

06:25in a transparent manner.

06:27This could have been reviewed

06:29with confidence by the other judges.

06:31In this review, the third judge

06:33could have been seated in the committee.

06:35We would not have doubted its transparency.

06:37But today, the Supreme Court

06:39of the entire country

06:41has also objected to this.

06:43Sir, please make the final comment

06:45to Mr. Shehzad Shaukat.

06:47Mr. Sehwag is with us

06:49He says,

06:51a series of events like this

06:53will lead to a political development

06:55in today's case.

06:57This could have been done in a non-controversial manner.

06:59I don't want to go into the past.

07:01The way this presidential reference came,

07:03the way this decision was given,

07:05I will save my comments on it.

07:07All this is a part of history.

07:09All of us,

07:11we don't have to live either.

07:13Institutions have to live.

07:15Every institution has to live

07:17We don't have the right to work

07:19outside the framework given in the Constitution.

07:21If we want to survive

07:23as a country,

07:25and move on the path of progress,

07:27I would like to begin

07:29by saying that dialogue

07:31is a very good thing.

07:33We should not immediately

07:35give glaring statements.

07:37This was purely

07:39a point of reference

07:41on which the Supreme Court

07:43of the entire country

07:45will stand.

07:47We are a very responsible institution.

07:49Anyone can be its president.

07:51It could be Mr. Hassan Bhoon,

07:53Mr. Abbas Zubairi, or me.

07:55We will all fulfill our tenure.

07:57The Supreme Court will stand there.

07:59Therefore, the Supreme Court

08:01did not take a case of an individual.

08:03This was a matter of the survival

08:05and survival of this country's Constitution.

08:07And its decision has come.

08:09Thank you very much, sir.

08:11Thank you very much for your time,

Supreme Court Announce Article 63-A verdict | Shehzad Shaukat's Analysis

Category

Transcript

Recommended