Ab muqadmay ki karwai aagy barhai jaye: Chief Justice
#chiefjustice #qazifaezisa #supremecourt #breakingnews #arynews
#chiefjustice #qazifaezisa #supremecourt #breakingnews #arynews
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 What can we do? What can this court do?
00:04 That means that inquiry is that report by the Supreme Judicial Council on the basis of which he has been removed is unconstitutional.
00:14 Because constitution requires...
00:16 I'm not asking for an argument. I'm saying what can this court do?
00:21 If I was to ask you, okay, what sort of order can this court pass, what would you suggest?
00:28 I'm not declaring the inquiry, the report of the Supreme Judicial Council as unconstitutional, void and nullity.
00:38 Suppose the allegations that you leveled were not true.
00:42 What was it?
00:44 Suppose that the allegations that you leveled, one person is saying no, one person is saying yes.
00:50 Now we must have a mechanism to ascertain who is telling the truth.
00:56 I mean, we can't throw a coin in the air and decide on that basis.
01:00 So, there are two possibilities. I mean, don't mind my saying so.
01:05 Either the petitioner is telling the truth or is not telling the truth.
01:10 There are only two possibilities.
01:12 If, don't mind my saying so, if he's not telling the truth and he makes this allegation,
01:22 and nobody ascertains, like you have alleged, that nobody ascertained,
01:29 and nobody ascertains whether his allegation is true or false,
01:35 and his reasoning, or whatever the order is set aside,
01:39 surely this will not be proper.
01:42 That's why I'm saying how do we go forward now?
01:45 That is exactly the case.
01:47 If you Lordship may kindly see that I informed the Chief Justice of the Parliament.
01:51 No, we understand that. They concede no inquiry was held.
01:54 I'm saying where do we go from here?
01:56 So, therefore, the entire proceedings against me...
01:59 It's already happened.
02:00 Suppose, just for the sake of argument, we say, because we have to deal with these cases,
02:08 it becomes precedent.
02:10 Okay. Supreme Judicial Council, let's assume, did not do its job by inquiring into the matter.
02:20 Correct. I think fundamental rights are available to judges as well.
02:28 Due process and fair trial.
02:31 By all means, hear it, and then remove me,
02:36 because say this is false allegation you've levelled,
02:41 you don't fit to be a judge,
02:43 and not only you made a false allegation, you went and made it publicly.
02:46 If it was false, he should be removed?
02:53 No.
02:54 No, if the allegation that you now, is established to be false after the inquiry,
03:00 should you have been removed?
03:03 Then can be yes.
03:05 No, no, no, no, no, no. Now I reverse it.
03:08 Yeah.
03:10 If after inquiry, it transpires that the allegation that you levelled was true,
03:18 they may say you still should be removed because you went public.
03:22 Or, no you should not be, but your emphasis is on the fact that one way or the other,
03:29 inquire into the matter. Am I correct in understanding that?
03:33 Okay.
03:34 Now we, because you had levelled initially allegations without making anyone a party,
03:39 so we wanted to hear what the persons against whom the allegations had been made,
03:47 what would they say?
03:49 They may come and say, yes, I did so and so, but there was nothing wrong in it,
03:54 or simply say, yes, I did it.
03:57 But the matter can't end now, because they are saying, no, this is all false.
04:03 So who will ascertain the truth of the matter?
04:06 The Supreme Judicial Council ought to have done that.
04:09 Now, now, now.
04:12 Now your Lordship will see.
04:14 Zara main solution bhi bata de na saath sir. We are looking for a, how to solve this riddle.
04:19 Iska simple jawab hai sir. Jaise pehle, in some cases it has happened.
04:25 [Silence]
04:37 Ek toh ye hai, humne solution, hum aapka point of view samajh gaye, hum aapka case samajh gaye.
04:46 Ab hum karein kya, yeh batayiye.
04:49 What sort of order, which should not, you know, either then it will amount to,
04:55 the same allegation that you've levelled on the other side,
04:59 the other side will tomorrow complain and say, you never ascertained this fact,
05:05 and you've held that we've done this thing.
05:07 So, you know, come up with a solution now.
05:11 Yeh solution yeh hai sir, ke let this order of the President and the report may kindly be quashed,
05:19 and a commission may be appointed to ascertain the truth, so that we can cross-army them, they can cross-army us.
05:26 Ek second, ek second, thaiye na.
05:28 Commission, how, under what law will we do that?
05:31 This Honourable Court can always do so.
05:34 No, dekhi hai.
05:35 To ascertain the truth about the matter.
05:37 No, it can't be demanded to the Supreme Judicial Council.
05:40 Sir, is that a possibility or it's not?
05:43 It can be, yes, it can be, yes.
05:46 No, I want your clear thinking on this.
05:49 After questioning the order of this President, there is one problem, which I see.
05:54 Ek sub-article 7 bhi padle.
05:56 Ji.
05:57 209 sub-article 7.
05:58 209 sub-article 7 padle.
06:00 Ji.
06:01 7, sab, wo 7 ki baat ho rahi hai na.
06:06 Usmein hai, a judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, can, shall not be removed
06:12 from office except as provided by this article.
06:14 Article kya provide karta hai?
06:17 President can remove on the basis of a report.
06:20 The report has to be based on inquiry.
06:22 So, therefore, under clause 7.
06:24 Nahi, dekhi hai, ye toh admitted fact ho gaya hai that no one ascertained whether the allegation
06:34 was factually correct or not.
06:37 That much is established from what I have been able to understand.
06:41 Unless somebody says, no, it's not been established.
06:44 I don't think even Khwaja sahib, pooshte the Khwaja sahib kahan gaye?
06:49 Unkab hi issue nahi hai.
06:51 Unkab hi issue nahi hai.
06:53 the one we... (audio cuts out)