Welcoem to posts!!
in the future - u will be able to do some more stuff here,,,!! like pat catgirl- i mean um yeah... for now u can only see others's posts :c
Thanks to my kind subscribers gor their constant support & prayers
3 - 0
A pleasure meeting with ShehrYar khan LLB student at High Court
41 - 4
اونٹ کی ٹانگ کاٹنے کا مسئلہ ؟ ایک جانور کے ساتھ ظلم ، لیکن اس کو سوشیل میڈیا کی زینت تو بنا دیا یہ فیصلہ بھی کریں کے اس کے ساتھ آئندہ زندگی میں کیا کرنا چاہیے ۔۔ براہِ مہربانی سیریز کمنٹس کریں
6 - 7
بغیر اجازت دوسری شادی کی اجازت
The subject of polygamy is governed by the provisions of section 6 of the Ordinance.
From perusal of above provisions of law, it is manifest that according to sub-section (1) of section 6 ibid, no man, during the subsistence of an existing marriage, shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the Arbitration Council, contract another marriage, nor shall any such marriage contracted without such permission be registered under the Ordinance whereas sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Act provides penalties for contracting another marriage making the man liable to pay immediately the entire amount of the dower, whether prompt or deferred, due to existing wife or wives, if not so paid, recoverable as arrears of land revenue and on conviction be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to simple imprisonment of one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. It is pertinent to note that section 6 ibid neither makes the registration of another marriage contracted without permission of the Arbitration Council an offence nor the Ordinance prescribes any inchoate offence in relation to polygamy such as attempt, solicitation or conspiracy. Section 6 of the Ordinance does not prescribe any punishment or penalty against anyone other than the husband who contracts another marriage without permission of the Arbitration Council concerned.
It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of criminal statutes that enactments prescribing an offence are to be construed strictly and the words used therein cannot be extended by construction.
For being a special statute, in the absence of any specific provision in the Ordinance permitting applicability of the Pakistan Penal Code, provisions such as section 109 of the PPC for the offence of abetment cannot be read into and made applicable to broaden scope of the offence prescribed under section 6(5) of the Ordinance.
WP 84511/23
Mst. ۔۔۔۔. Vs ASJ Lahore etc
2024 MLD 786
20 - 0
har Minallah, J.- I have had the privilege of carefully reading the order. With great respect, I have not been able to persuade myself to endorse paragraphs 1 to 12 at this stage. The question whether the Prime Minister can be called on the administrative or judicial side and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case before us, particularly the nature of the complaint, the constitution of the commission by the executive branch of the State in exercise of its powers conferred under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017 would have been in breach of the principle of independence of judiciary are yet to be considered by the full Court. Moreover, larger benches of this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ('Constitution'), have already exercised the power of constituting commissions and, therefore, this question is also open to be decided in this case on the judicial side by the full Court. All these questions are likely to be considered by the full Court in the present proceedings and, therefore, propriety requires that I restrain myself from commenting on these issues. It was for this reason that I could not persuade myself to endorse paragraphs 1 to 12 at this stage, while I concur with the remaining order. In order to appreciate the gravity and the extent of public importance involved in the matter brought before us I deem it appropriate to briefly record some preliminary observations.
2. Six judges of a constitutional court, the Islamabad High Court, have brought to the attention of the Supreme Court grave and serious interference in judicial proceedings and intimidation of judges by the executive branch of the State and its organs. They have recorded specific instances of such interference and intimidation. They have stated that they were compelled to seek guidance because
SMC 1/2024
2
certain questions have been left open by this Court while deciding the case of Justice Shaukat Siddiqui1. It is obvious from the letter that they had raised the issue before all the relevant forums but, despite the seriousness of matter, there was no institutional response. The matter was also promptly brought to the attention of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, who at that time had the exclusive power to invoke suo moto proceedings under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. The matter was serious and its implications in the context of the independence of judiciary were so grave that there could not have been any conceivable justification for the then pater familias of the institution to ignore it and, instead, choose to look the other way. The institutional insensitivity is manifest from the letter. It also reflects a culture of accepting the practice of manipulation of judicial proceedings by the executive branch of the State through interference and intimidation. The institutional response relating to the most serious and grave acts of interference in judicial proceedings and intimidation of judges could have been justifiably understood as an acceptance of practices, standards and norms which have profound consequences for the independence of the judiciary. The letter by the six judges, therefore, raises questions regarding the institutional commitment to uphold the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary.
3
complicit, rather seen as a willing partner. Though not every judge could be influenced or pressurised at that time and their judgments speak for themselves but the culture of deviancy was accepted as a norm because the institution was perceived to be complicit. The phenomenon of interference with and manipulation of 'politically consequential matters' has remained an acceptable norm which is manifested from the unflattering role of the judicial branch for the past seventy six years. This phenomenon has, prima facie, relegated the principle of independence of judiciary to a mere platitude. This is what has been highlighted by the six judges in their letter. The normalisation of the culture of deviancy profoundly erodes and undermines the independence of judiciary. The assiduous entrenchment of such normalisation has made unacceptable practices, standards and norms as acceptable within the institution. The six judges have drawn the attention of this Court to a matter which definitely is of paramount public importance, having profound consequences in the context of safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens.
SMC 1/2024
4
and as whistle blowers they were required to be dealt with carefully because the whistle blowing was in public interest. This Court in the present proceedings also has to consider evolving jurisprudence which does not deter internal whistle blowing because of the public importance associated with it. No one within the institution must fear that blowing whistle internally could lead to unimaginable consequences having the effect of being thrown to the wolves. Such an approach would profoundly undermine the internal independence of judiciary. It was, in my opinion, premature for the executive to constitute a commission and, prima facie, in breach of the independence of judiciary. The matter is now subjudice before the full Court. The full Court will consider whether an inquiry is required and, if so, the nature of the inquiry is also likely to be determined on the judicial side having regard to safeguarding the independence of judiciary. It is noted that in Air Marshal Asghar Khan's case2 the factual aspects were determined by this Court on the basis of affidavits while in Dharna case3 credible print media reports and other material placed on record were relied upon. This crucial aspect has yet to be considered by the full Court in these proceedings. The judges are not complainants but they had solicited advice and guidance. Nonetheless, they have referred to instances of intimidation and interference. The onus is on the State and the executive to demonstrably satisfy the full Court that there has been no interference nor attempt to manipulate judicial proceedings in specific 'politically consequential matters'. What has been highlighted in the letter as a phenomena appears to be a continuation of the unacceptable practices and norms that have been made acceptable in the past seventy six years. The judges have highlighted the
2 M.Asghar Khan v. Mirza Aslam Baig (PLD 2013 SC 1)
3 Suo Motu action regarding Islamabad-Rawalpindi Sit in/Dharna (PLD 2019 SC 318)
SMC 1/2024
5
institutional insensitivity. The Attorney General has referred to political engineering in specific politically consequential matters in the past while it appears from the letter of the six judges that it continues unabated even today. The impunity against intimidation of the judges and interference in judicial proceedings in politically consequential matters
SMC 1/2024
6
Intelligence (“MI”) and ISPR serve Pakistan, and thus all its citizens. They must never be perceived to support a particular political party, faction or politician. If any personnel of the Armed Forces indulges in any form of politicking or tries to manipulate the media he undermines the integrity and professionalism of the Armed Forces. The duties of the Armed Forces are clearly spelt out in the Constitution, they, “shall under the direction of the Federal Government defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so”. We must not allow the honour and esteem due to those who lay down their lives for others to be undermined by the illegal actions of a few.”
4. The letter of six judges confirms that the cases of Asghar khan and the Dharna could not stop interference in judicial proceedings and that the judgments are being brazenly violated. The letter manifests the phenomena of normalisation of deviancy culture within the institution and outside which has profound consequences for the independence of the judiciary. No one has ever been held accountable, which has created impunity for the worst form of mutilation of independence of judiciary. The public trust in the judicial system is eroded when the courts are perceived to be compromised. The flagrant violations of fundamental rights of the citizens and perceived failure of the courts to safeguard individual freedoms and rights severely undermines public confidence in the institution. The citizens would, therefore, be justified in raising questions regarding the independence of judiciary. As judges of the highest constitutional court we cannot turn a blind eye and ignore the grave abuse of powers by the executive which have consequences for individual freedoms and rights. We all know the reality but pretend to be ignorant. The six judges have raised the crucial
SMC 1/2024
question of 'whether there exists a continuing policy on part of the executive branch of the State, implemented by intelligence operatives who report to the executive branch, to intimidate judges, under threat of coercion or blackmail, to engineer judicial outcome in politically consequential matters'. The other crucial question that has arisen from the letter, as already discussed, is regarding normalisation of the culture of deviancy. Both these critical questions erode and undermine the independence of judiciary. The onus is on the Federal Government to establish before this Court that it is not so and to assist in resolving the questions raised in the order.
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
(Justice Athar Minallah)
7
2 - 0
اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ کے 6 ججز کے خط پر از خود نوٹس کیس پر سپریم کورٹ کی پہلی سماعت مورخہ (3 اپریل 2024) کا تحریری حکمنامہ جاری کردیا گیا۔
تحریری حکمنامہ کے مطابق معاملے پر عدلیہ کا بطور ادارہ رسپانس کیا ہو؟ سپریم کورٹ نے پاکستان بار، سپریم کورٹ بار اور وفاق سے تجاویز طلب کر لیں۔جسٹس اطہر من اللّٰہ نے حکمنامے کے 12 پیراگراف سے عدم اتفاق کیا۔ ان کا کہنا ہے کہ پیراگراف ایک سے 12 تک سے اتفاق کیلئے خود کو قائل نہیں کر سکا۔حکمنامے کے مطابق جسٹس اطہر من اللّٰہ نے کہا کہ وزیراعظم کو طلب کیا جا سکتا ہے یا نہیں اس سوال پر فل کورٹ نے ابھی غور کرنا ہے، حکومت کے کمیشن بنانے سے عدلیہ کی آزادی متاثر ہوتی ہے یا نہیں؟ ابھی طے ہونا ہے۔جسٹس اطہر من اللّٰہ نے کہا کہ جو سوال عدالت کے سامنے ہیں ان پر ابھی رائے دینا مناسب نہیں، ہائیکورٹ ججز کا خط دکھاتا ہے وہ ہر متعلقہ فورم پر معاملہ اٹھاتے رہے، معاملے کی سنجیدگی کے باوجود ادارے نے رسپانس نہیں دیا۔انہوں نے کہا کہ ہائیکورٹ ججز نے وہی کیا جو جج حلف کے مطابق کرنے کا پابند ہے، ہائیکورٹ کے 6 ججز پر شک کی کوئی وجہ موجود نہیں، ہائیکورٹ ججز نے آئین کی پاسداری کا حلف اٹھایا ہے۔حکمنامے کے مطابق جسٹس اطہر من اللّٰہ نے کہا کہ سیاسی اثرات رکھنے والے کیسز میں مداخلت کو جھٹلایا نہیں جا سکتا، ذوالفقار علی بھٹو ریفرنس میں عدالت خود یہ مان چکی، مداخلت کس حد تک ہے یہ دیکھنے کیلئے اصغر خان کیس کافی ہے۔
جسٹس یحییٰ آفریدی کا نوٹ
جسٹس یحییٰ آفریدی نے اضافی نوٹ میں کہا کہ ہائی کورٹس آئین کے تحت انڈیپینڈنٹ عدالتیں ہیں، آرٹیکل 184/3ہائی کورٹس کی آزادی پر استعمال نہیں ہونا چاہیے، از خود نوٹس اچھی نیت سے لیا گیا، از خود نوٹس سے ہائی کورٹس اور ان کے چیف جسٹسز کی آزادی کو نقصان پہنچ سکتا ہے۔جسٹس یحییٰ آفریدی نے کہا کہ 6 ججز کے خط میں اٹھائے معاملات سپریم جوڈیشل کونسل کے ضابطہ اخلاق میں دیکھے جانے چاہئیں، میں خود کو از خود نوٹس کے بینچ سے الگ کرتا ہوں۔
جسٹس اطہر من اللہ کا ججز خط کے حکم میں اضافی نوٹ
اضافی نوٹ میں جسٹس اطہر من اللّٰہ نے لکھا کہ خط لکھنے والے 6 ہائی کورٹ جج وسل بلور ہیں، آواز اٹھانے والے ان ججز کو مسائل کا سامنا نہیں ہونا چاہیے، فل کورٹ کے سامنے انتظامیہ کو ثابت کرنا ہوگا اس کی جانب سے مداخلت نہیں ہوتی، کٹہرے میں انتظامیہ ہے اور بار ثبوت بھی انتظامیہ پر ہے۔
اٹارنی جنرل کے دلائل بھی تحریری حکمنامہ میں شامل
سماعت کے دوران اٹارنی جنرل کے دلائل بھی تحریری حکم نامہ میں شامل کیے گئے۔
تحریری حکمنامہ کے مطابق اٹارنی جنرل کا کہنا تھا کہ وزیر اعظم کا فوری ردعمل اور عزم عدلیہ کی آزادی کو یقینی بنانے کا عملی اقدام ہے، وفاقی کابینہ کی منظوری سے سابق چیف جسٹس تصدق جیلانی کی سربراہی میں ایک رکنی کمیشن بنایا گیا، جسٹس ریٹائرڈ تصدق جیلانی نے وزیر قانون سے مشاورت کے بعد سربراہی کی حامی بھری، بعد ازاں سابق چیف جسٹس تصدق جیلانی نے کمیشن سے الگ ہونے کا خط لکھا۔اٹارنی جنرل کے مطابق وزیر قانون نے تصدق جیلانی کے گھر جاکر ملاقات کی، اٹارنی جنرل نے کہا تصدق جیلانی کو انکوائری کمیشن کے مجوزہ ٹی او آرز فراہم کیے گئے۔حکمنامہ میں کہا گیا ہے کہ بدقسمتی سے تصدق حسین جیلانی کیخلاف سوشل میڈیا پر بُری مہم چلائی گئی، معاملے کی سنجیدگی کو دیکھتے ہوئے وزیراعظم سے ملاقات کا فیصلہ کیا گیا۔حکمنامہ کے مطابق فل کورٹ میٹنگ میں آرٹیکل 248 کے تحت وزیراعظم کو استثنیٰ کا حوالہ دیا گیا، بتایا گیا کہ آرٹیکل 248 کے تحت وزیراعظم یا وزیر قانون کو طلب نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔تحریری حکمنامہ کے مطابق اٹارنی جنرل نے کہا ججز کے خط میں موجودہ چیف جسٹس پاکستان کے دور کا کوئی واقعہ درج نہیں۔اٹارنی جنرل نے دلائل دیتے ہوئے کہا چیف جسٹس پاکستان جب جج تھے ان کو بھی قتل کی دھمکیاں دی گئیں، ان کی اہلیہ سرینا عیسیٰ نے پولیس اسٹیشن میں رپورٹ کرائی، دھمکیاں دینے والے کے خلاف پیکا ایکٹ کے تحت مقدمہ درج کیا گیا، دھمکیاں دینے والے شخص کے خلاف توہین عدالت کی فرد جرم لگائی گئی، سپریم کورٹ نے اس کے بعد کوئی کارروائی نہیں کی۔
S.M.C.1/2024
In the matter of letter dated 25th March 2024 of the Six Judges of the Islamabad High Court
14 - 2
Happy Eid Mubarak To All Muslims
25 - 0
عمران خان اور بشریٰ بی بی کی سزا معطل ہونے کا بعد بریت ہو گی
10 - 0
Patwari K Fraud Se Mutalik My Best Video
1 - 0
Knowing the law is the basic necessity of any person and Ignorance of the Law - No excuse.
I am Qasim Bin Sajjad Adv. My qualifications are M. A (Eng) (Hist) LL.M and have 22 years of experience in Law.
MOTIVE.
I aim to provide knowledge of the law to everyone. My lecture will provide you the knowledge of LAW MADE EASY FOR EVERYONE. I also aim to give a motivational message in it so that everyone should step ahead for a better future in life. I also aim to guide you in earning money on YouTube.
You get detailed knowledge on PPC, CrPC, CPC, Qanoon e Shahadat, the Constitution Of Pakistan, The Transfer Of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Election Laws, Company Law, Family Laws, Custody minor/ Guardian Contract Act, The Constitution of India.
www.fiverr.com/qasimkhan77?up_rollout=true
My Facebook
www.facebook.com/qasim.b.sajjad
Twitter
twitter.com/home
My Fiverr Seller 2
www.fiverr.com/qasimkhan77?up_rollout=true