Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Law on January 19th, 2010
The Supreme Court on Sunday night clarified categorically that recommendations of the SC chief justice are binding on the president and any deviation would be tantamount to a subversion of the constitution.
The remarks were made by the registrar of the SC following a concerted campaign on different media channels on Sunday against the recommendations of chief justice of Pakistan regarding appointment of new judges.
Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain, told The News: “The constitution clearly states that appointment in Supreme Court is made by the president after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan. The word consultation has been interpreted in the judges-appointment case of 1996. It is clearly laid down in this judgment that consultation has to be purposive, meaningful and that ordinarily the recommendations of the chief justice of Pakistan have primacy and binding on the executive.”
Dr Faqir further said: “Chief justice is better placed to know the qualifications, calibre and professional standing of a candidate for the position of the judge in Supreme Court. So his recommendation ordinarily is binding on the president and will have to be accepted, will have to be approved except for sound and valid reasons to be communicated to the chief justice which is justiciable. These reasons are open to scrutiny to the court of law and court can give judgement on validity of the reasons given by the president. So, far all practical purposes, the recommendations are binding on the president. Any deviation from it would be contravention of the constitution and subversion of the constitution.” Dr Faqir concluded with the word, “This is the legal position.”
Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui told The News late Sunday night that the president could differ with the recommendations sent by the chief justice of Pakistan regarding appointment of some judges in the apex court by giving valid reasons which could later be examined the Chief Justice.
“But under the law and the constitution neither the president nor the prime minister or any other executive authority has any power to recommend any new name,” said the former chief justice. He said that a name could only be recommended by the chief justice for the appointment in Supreme Court.
A full-fledged campaign, apparently backed by the law ministry’s top guns, reached its peak Sunday night when it was continuously repeated that the prime minister had changed the recommendations of the chief justice and had sent to the president the name of Justice Khawaja Sharif as judge of the Supreme Court and recommendation of the Justice Saqib Nisar as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court.
While the chief justice had sent the recommendation of elevation of Lahore High Court judge Justice Saqib Nisar as the judge of the Supreme Court and recommended appointment of the retiring judge Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday as an ad-hoc judge of the Supreme Court.
However, certain top guns of the law ministry started a malicious campaign in the media against the recommendation of the chief justice giving wrong references of the Al-Jihad Trust Case. These references were even rebutted by the petitioner in the Al-Jihad Trust case and chairman of this trust senior advocate Habib Wahab-ul-Khairi and other top constitutional experts of the country including former Chief Justice Siddiqui.
According to sources, by sending Justice Khawaja Sharif to the Supreme Court, some hawkish legal advisors of President Zardari were planning to avoid the recommendations of Justice Khawaja Sharif, which he gave for the appointment of new judges in Lahore High Court. New names of judges may then be sent for the LHC.
However, senior lawyer and former judge of the Balochistan High Court, Justice Tariq Mehmood told The News that recommendations regarding appointment of new judges given by any high court chief justice always remain intact even if that chief justice retires or is transferred from his position. Spokesman of the president Farhatullah Babar told this scribe that the news being run on different TV channels regarding some final decision by presidency were wrong.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on January 17th, 2010
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on January 17th, 2010
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Religion on January 16th, 2010
Friday, 15 January 2010 The first brick of Hindu-Muslim antagonism was laid when Muhammad Bin Qasim raised the banner of Islam in Sindh in 712 AD and tens of thousands of lower caste Hindus and Buddhists suffering under the tyrannical yoke of Raja Dahir embraced Islam. Throughout 1000 years rule of India by the Muslims, Hindu cultural values and religious sentiments were respected and preserved. Benevolence of Muslim rulers of India and their patronage to high caste Hindus resulted in failure to assimilate Hinduism into fold of Islam. This can be gauged from the fact that at the time of partition of India, Muslim strength in the Indian subcontinent was mere 22%.
Hindus never reconciled to any meaningful integration with generous Muslim culture. Behind apparent public cordiality, there was deep-seated antagonism in private. Muslims were always looked down upon as defiled and polluted and treated as intruders. Hinduism reluctantly submitted to Muslim rule, but all the time it strived to weaken Islamic society by corroding it from within.
When the British captured power in India, Hindus became natural allies of the British and both went all out to destroy social, educational, cultural and religious heritage of Muslims. Hindus deep-rooted hatred got accentuated when the Muslims opted for a separate homeland.
Notwithstanding the aspirations of the Muslims of India, the idea of a separate Muslim state was repugnant to Indian Congress and hence unacceptable to them. This led to a bitter and prolonged quarrel between the two communities. While it was a question of survival for the Muslims, for Hindus it was the matter of preventing vivisection of so-called Mahabharata.
Despite many hurdles created by Hindu leaders, upsurge for gaining independence was too great and beyond human control. In spite of MA Jinnah’s loud protestations, provinces of Bengal and Punjab were deliberately partitioned while Kashmir was allowed to accede to India to make him change his mind. These callous acts failed to deter him but sowed seeds of permanent discord between Pakistan and India. When the Kashmiris rose up in revolt, over two-third of Kashmir was forcibly annexed by Indian forces.
Failing to reconcile to the existence of Pakistan and cherishing the fond hope of its re-absorption into Indian dominion, Indian leaders worked hard for the dismemberment of Pakistan soon after its inception. Many Indians regarded the creation of Pakistan as a tragic mistake that could still be corrected. Break up of Pakistan and its absorption within the fold of Indian Union had become the national goal of Congress leaders. To consolidate the Indian dominion, by March 1949, India had absorbed 538 princely states out of a total of 565. India’s insatiable greed to gorge as many states and her menacing attitude towards Pakistan made the latter wary and worried.
Pakistan’s geographical frontiers had yet to be determined. It was without a seat of government or an administrative structure to enable it to exercise its’ sovereignty. It was without a constitution; its’ armed forces were scattered; civil servants and other administrative and technical hands were in the midst of migrating from India; its political and economic system was completely disrupted and the communication system had broken down.
As if these settling problems and the hanging evil shadow of Mountbatten and Radcliffe were not enough, Pakistan’s horizons clouded with hostile acts of its neighbors in the east and the northwest. Their hostility cast perverse shadows across its path. Hindu leaders in their quest to re-unite India continued to hurl threats and saddle Pakistan with knotty problems to prevent the toddling state from standing on its own feet. They refused to accept the creation of Pakistan with good grace, and to settle all outstanding differences on the basis of justice and fair play. They regarded Pakistan as a transient euphoria of Muslims.
Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army having read the intentions of the Indians opined, “I have no hesitation in affirming that the present Indian Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the dominion of Pakistan on a firm basis”.
According to Brecher, “Most of Congress leaders and Nehru among them, subscribed to the view that Pakistan was not a viable state-politically, economically, geographically or militarily and that sooner or later the areas which had ceded would be compelled by force of circumstances to return to the fold”.
In struggling to create a state structure in the chaotic environments of partition and an early war with India over Kashmir, our managers remained tied down fighting the battle of survival and identity. There was no certainty that Pakistan would survive its traumatic birth. “Very few states in the world started with greater handicaps than Pakistan did on August 14, 1947”.
After a lapse of over six decades, it is rather not possible for the present younger generation to perceive the complexities faced by the pioneers of Pakistan at the time of independence. For those who lived through that trying period of history and personally experienced the turmoil, human tragedies, mass carnage of the Muslims by the Hindu-Sikh combine, and the Hindus abominable Bania mentality, it was a nightmare.
Given their common past spread over centuries it was hoped that the two countries after having won their independence from the seductive tentacles of the British Raj would close the chapter of suspicion and aversion and instead strive to live as peaceful neighbors. It was expected that rather than beating war drums and sinking into the bottomless ocean of arms race, leaders of the two countries would concentrate on well being of the people through mutual cooperation. Unfortunately, those hopes remained an elusive dream.
Adversarial history of sixty-two years covering the whole existence of the two nations has in fact made the minds captive of a hate each other syndrome. Jingoistic statements are often hurled at each other to play with the emotions of the people or to satisfy sadistic instincts. After tearing Pakistan into two in 1971, Indian hawkish leaders keep scheming to fragment rest of Pakistan. 1980s saw rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India. Militant BJP government in India that captured power twice repeatedly voiced its wish to reunite the subcontinent and to annex Azad Kashmir by force and vowed to establish Hindutva. Indian Congress is no less antagonistic towards Pakistan and has taken no steps to control growth of Hindu fundamentalism which is intolerant towards all other minorities in India.
Hate phobia and age-old prejudices in the two neighboring countries have not died down.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Religion on January 15th, 2010
This Article is dedicated to the Memory of Allama Dr.Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi (shaheed), a soldier of Islam for Peace and Brotherhood of all Fiqah, who was martyred by the forces of darkness and