"Attorney General sahab ap mere sawalo ka jawab den," Justice Munib raises valid questions
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 I'm not indulging in conjectures.
00:06 I'm asking you a question.
00:08 We want the justice system to be more efficient.
00:11 It actually helps.
00:13 There are more minds sitting together trying to work out how to make things more efficient and transparent.
00:17 In order to aid the litigants who come before your lordships,
00:25 and if I may say so, the primary duty and obligation of this court is under Article 185,
00:34 exercising appellate jurisdiction.
00:36 184(3) is rare cases which come before you.
00:39 It's actually the appellate jurisdiction of this court which this court is duty-bound to exercise.
00:45 So anything and everything which advances that objective, that constitutional objective,
00:50 must be supported, must be upheld.
00:52 There is no fundamental right which gets offended or violated by advancing this objective.
00:59 And Section 2 endeavors to do as much.
01:02 So if that was the objective, the law would again be changed if at some stage the government or the parliament decides that,
01:15 no, three judges are not enough, let's do it by ballot.
01:19 So you would amend the law accordingly?
01:22 Or let's do it by three judges, why not all 17 sitting and deciding which cases go where?
01:30 My lord, if I may respond to this?
01:33 Yes, sure.
01:34 My lord, if the pendency is down to 20,000, absolutely there would be no occasion.
01:38 But if it goes to 75,000, there might be.
01:40 Why not 10?
01:41 Zero.
01:42 But this is what is being sought to be addressed.
01:47 You will attend to a matter on that thing.
01:51 I don't think parliamentarians, we should disparage parliament all the time.
01:56 If the situation is that there is no pendency, maybe they would have not come up with this thing.
02:00 Maybe if the damage caused by various was not done, they would have not come up with this thing.
02:05 So parliament doesn't operate in a vacuum.
02:07 Here, the government is part of it, opposition is part of it, all these people are part of it.
02:14 They think and they produce something.
02:16 Maybe not in the most perfect of things, but we have to, each legislation must be supported
02:22 unless it's clear cut violation of the ultraviaries of constitution fundamental rights in 184(3).
02:29 Otherwise, it can be ultraviaries of constitution 199.
02:33 My lord, the power remains vested in this court.
02:36 But Mr. Attorney General, suppose there is a parliament that is elected in the next general election.
02:46 On your theory, would that parliament not have the power to repeal this law?
02:51 Of course.
02:52 You see, you are saying this is a law affecting the barrenness.
02:59 That this is a law affecting, having such a salutary effect, it is having this, that and the other.
03:07 So someone can say, if parliament has no power, then repeal this law.
03:11 Or suppose, the next parliament comes and releases section 2.
03:15 They say, yes, it is the power of the Chief Justice, that's good enough.
03:18 My lord, it is possible. I am asking you.
03:21 Mr. Awan, please, I stopped them and I will stop you too. I will not go on the barrenness.
03:28 I will go on the reality. This law has come.
03:31 Next time someone brings a case, we will see that too.
03:34 I will never give opinions. You either use our advisory jurisdiction.
03:38 We will not give you such opinions.
03:40 Your job is to give your government an opinion.
03:43 Our job is to see its constitutionality, validity. That's it.
03:47 We don't want to put you on the lintel. What will happen?
03:51 What do we know what will happen? When it comes, we will see.
03:53 There are many things. You fix it. Please, on this law and move forward.
03:58 Because we, see, the court, you are not understanding its importance.
04:02 We are sitting here, the air-conditioning company is sitting here.
04:05 People are dying in some jail. Someone's case.
04:08 I am in pain.
04:12 The case is 57,000.
04:15 Now we will leave it and go to 150.
04:17 Tomorrow 150 more. You run a month's case.
04:19 What difference does it make to us?
04:21 The difference is because we are taking salaries from this poor people to do one thing.
04:28 To decide their cases.
04:31 This is a very good debate.
04:34 Go and do the challenge in the High Court.
04:36 It will come in the judgment of Article 94.
04:38 We will sit with full power and see it.
04:41 You know what was the issue of making a bench?
04:43 Despite this, the stage is running.
04:45 I asked my two senior colleagues that I am going to do this.
04:48 Two stages are running.
04:50 It is wrong that the law is running.
04:53 Still, move forward and finish someone.
04:57 It is a question of leaving the law.
05:00 But you give your arguments.
05:02 We will listen and decide.
05:04 Someone will disagree, someone will not. It is their choice.
05:07 We do not need to persuade you.
05:09 You persuade us.
05:11 If you do not want to answer the question, do not answer.
05:13 We will decide against you.
05:15 My Lord, I am not indulging in conjectures.
05:23 I am asking you a question in order to understand the principles that you are saying and arguing and submitting before the court.
05:31 I am not engaging in theoretical argument.
05:34 I am trying to understand the basis on which you are defending the constitutionality of this law.
05:40 Therefore, my question stands.
05:45 Tomorrow, if Parliament were to make this law and say, let it go back to the Chief Justice in his sole capacity,
05:53 would that be within Parliament's competence?
05:56 My Lord, if that is so, and if it so happens,
05:59 Learn at any general.
06:01 Learn at any general.
06:03 You accept that? Absolutely.
06:05 Learn at any general.
06:07 Learn at any general.
06:11 You have provided assistance.
06:13 I have as attorney general.
06:15 You are answering absolutely.