Comments on: Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry is a Mullah Omar of Pakistan; says Senator Faisal Raza Abdi

By: muhammad Afzal

muhammad Afzal — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:54:01 +0000

The judiciary is empowered by the constitution to interpret and strike down any law that conflicts with any provision of the constitution, I point out one case in which one of the cheif justices of Pakistan has given the inherited land of a father to one son depriving others three due to supreme court Chief Justice’s personal share negligence and careless hearing giving superflous and undue remarks and by relying upon short pedigree table produced by the lawyer. It is clearly against the law. Istaqrar-e-haq is never time bard. can the present cheif justice reapair this damage to the august Supreme court of pakistan and uphold the Islamic laws.

By: Nadia

Nadia — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:04:46 +0000

History will judge this judiciary as the worst bunch of judges our country ever had. The CJ is not concentrating to improve the functioning of lower courts which should be his first priority. His all efforts and actions are to witch-hunt the PPP only, which is evident from over exposing in the media, taunting and unfavorable observations by SC judges during proceedings, and running the SC as a trade union. Since he is reinstated, dissent and/or diversity of thoughts are nowhere in the SC decisions. Judges are seem to work mechanically and endorsing ” given ” decisions instead of applying their own free minds, Pending cases and corruption are rapidly increasing in all courts. This should be the real and top most challenge for the CJ. I hope the better sense will prevail sooner than the latter and “all” citizens of Pakistan will finally get the cheap and speedy justice equally, which was dreamt during the lawyers movement for restoration of ” free ” judiciary.

By: Imran

Imran — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:19:40 +0000

The judiciary is empowered by the constitution to interpret and strike down any law that conflicts with any provision of the constitution, itself remaining within the boundaries fixed by the constitution. Hence, both segments of the state are supreme, one being public representatives and the other having the power of judicial review. But the full-mouthed claim by the lawmakers that parliament is supreme and the judiciary’s insistence that it is supreme do not augur well for the future of the country. One cannot question the power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution but sometimes directions given by the Supreme Court to the executive to appoint so and so and transfer a particular civil servant do not fall within the purview of interpretation and the apex court seems to assume the duties of the executive, which is not good for democracy.