The term Kangaroo Court may apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. Ostensibly, the term comes from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo - in other words, "jumping over" (intentionally ignoring) evidence that would be in favor of the defendant.
Alarmingly, Pakistan Supreme Court is becoming closer to this definition. Here is a record of apex court's recent handling of important cases:
In a controversial decision on April 7, Pakistan Supreme Court reversed the then Prime Minister Imran Khan's order to dissolve the National Assembly and to hold fresh general elections. The Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial read out the decision that ordered the NA Speaker to summon the parliament session by April 9 to vote for a no confidence motion against Imran Khan and elect a new prime minister forthwith if the motion is approved.
On April 9 night, while the National Assembly was debating the no confidence motion against Imran Khan, Pakistan Supreme Court was opened and CJ and other bench member judges arrived apparently to take action if the National Assembly fails to meet the deadline to vote on the motion. Media reports indicated that while the National Assembly was debating the no confidence motion prison vans were stationed outside the National Assembly, apparently to take away officials guilty of contempt. There was speculation that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker could be arrested if the vote was not held by midnight as ordered by the Supreme Court.
PTI sends review petition to SC on deputy speaker verdict
Hours before the vote of no confidence, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf sent to the Supreme Court (SC) a review petition challenging its April 7 decision to set aside the National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri's ruling to dismiss the no-trust resolution against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The petition, prepared by Babar Awan and Advocate Mohammad Azhar Siddique, has named the PPP, PML-N, Supreme Court Bar Association, Sindh High Court Bar Association and the Sindh Bar Council as respondents.
Talking to Dawn.com, Siddique said that while the petition was sent to the apex court and remains there, it could not be processed as offices had closed early owing to Ramazan timings. He said it would be processed on the next working day.
The petition, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, requested the SC to "kindly review, recall and set aside the impugned order dated April 7 which is based on errors floating on the surface," as well as suspend the operation of the impugned order.
It argued that the apex court's order in the absence of detailed reasons was not a judicial determination according to Article 184(3) of the Constitution which states that an issue needs to be of public importance if the court has to have jurisdiction on it.
Referring to the court's detailed orders of how today's NA proceedings should be conducted, the petition said the apex court's bench could not forcefully "direct discharge of constitutional obligations, by office holders of constitutional posts under the Constitution".
It said that giving a timetable for how the NA session should proceed and dictating the speaker to act in a particular manner amounted to interfering in the affairs of the lower house and violating the Constitution.
The petition also argued that the apex court had "erred" by not announcing any verdict in the presidential reference seeking the court's opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution. It added that in the absence of any determination, the court had "prejudiced" the reference's proceedings and "blemished the entire proceedings" of today's NA session.
Furthermore, the petition said that the bench had "erred" to appreciate the Constitution's provisions that barred the apex court from interfering in the proceedings of parliament or holding officials such as the president, prime minister, speaker and deputy speaker answerable to the court, including in the exercise of their discretionary powers.
Hearing on defection clause prolongs
Before its ouster, the PTI government had filed a presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A, asking the top court about the "legal status of the vote of party members when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money".
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
