Is parliment supereme or supreme court ???

  • US president Richard Nixon was elected president. United states supreme court convicted him in the water gate scandal and was sent home and had to resign as US president.

    The verdict and Nixon's decision to resign clearly indicate that supreme court is superior to the parliament

    Is our democracy different or superior to the other democracies of the world----"niralie democracy" ---- "sky born" ----"NRO's illegitimate child"

  • Neither Parliament nor Supreme Court is supreme, only Constitution is supreme and both Parliament and SC work under the constitution.

    There is a common argument that since parliament can modify constitution, therefore parliament is supreme. Yes, parliament can make amendments in constitution, but even parliament can't change the structure of any core article of constitution.

    In order to change the core structure of constitution, there has to be different kind of parliament called "Dastoor Saaz Assembly" that comes into existence when special elections are held for that purpose.

    The constitution is therefore supreme and this parliament works under it, definitely not above it.

  • @ rasheed

    You're absolutely right.

    Neither Parliament nor Supreme Court is supreme, only Constitution is supreme and both Parliament and SC work under the constitution. Parliament, Supreme Court and all other institutions work under the constitution. Parliament can make amendments and Supreme Court can explain any article of the constitution.

    No institution is superior to others and all institutions are responsible to follow the constitution as explained by Supreme Court.

  • well supreme court has failed to deal with the corrupt elite of this country. He did nothing concerning RD case, the contempt by gilani saab verdict was weak, ashgar khan case is still pending, not bothered about verdict because it seems it will be another weak one.

    so therfore parliament is stronger as the biggest looters of this country are running free.

  • The word "Supreme" is synonymous with Kingdoms and Divines and not with a republic. The term which lacks in Pakistani political discource is "checks and balances". The above posts try to explain exactly that term.

    A valid question is usually raised that what are the checks on the highest court's ill-decisions? In a country like USA the houses can annul a court decision by a constitutional amendment. Unlike Pakistan, an amendment in US constitution is a not an easy thing. A supper majority in the houses (2/3) and a unanimous ratification by the states is required.

    The modern law theories have built in mechanism to clean up bad verdicts of the past. A students of law on this forum can shed some light on it.

    The truth is that Pakistani Constituiton lacks checks and balances in many areas. That is why there have been many constitutional crises in its history.

  • The constitution does not explain about the immunity of the president. It does not explain that the president has immunity for his acts or crimes which he did as president or he is immune to all his acts or crimes which he did before becoming president. does he has lifelong immunity i.e. does this immunity persist even when he is no more a president in future. Only body that can explain it is supreme court. If some body goes to the court with a plea asking the above question , it can give a verdict.

    Only way parliament can overcome this is that it brings a constitutional amendment stating that president has a life long immunity. In this scenario supreme court won't be able to explain it in any way

    Recently, health care bill was approved with a majority vote both by u.s. congress and senate, but the case in the court with a pending decision. Obama recently gave a statement about this case asking the court to approve, there were many voices and noise about this statement by the president. Senate and congress have nothing to do with it . Ball is out of their domain.

  • @rasheed - the Red and Green lota of PMLN

    What is this "Dastoor Saaz(ish) Assembly" and special elections? I could not find anything about it in the Pakistani constitution. For 1973 constitution, Bhutto did not call for a special election. In fact he used the dismembered assembly of Pakistan (Pakistan minus East Pakistan) of a previous election to craft a constitution. The only sensible thing he did was a consensus among majority of parties (even party as small as Jamat-e-Islami). But that consensus was put aside when, within the same term, he made numerous amendments afterward aginst the wishes of many. He had a super majority. What a crook mind was he.

    There is a point to note that some nationalist parties of Baluchistan and Pakhtunkhwa did not ratify the constitution.

    The immunity to the head of the state is usually given to remove any impediments for the execution of state orders while in power and not for a criminal to hide behind a constitution.

  • @ Khan

    The truth is that Pakistani Constituiton lacks checks and balances in many areas. That is why there have been many constitutional crises in its history.

    یہ انسانوں کا بنایا ہوا آئین ہے اسمیں توازن کا نہ ہونا کوئی ایسی بڑی بات نہیں ہے. دنیا کے تمام آئین ایسے ہی ہوتے ہیں. اگر کوئی آئین متوازن ہوتا تو اس ملک کی پارلیمنٹ کو قانون میں ترامیم کا اختیار نہ ہوتا. کوئی ایسا ملک نہیں ہے جسمیں پارلیمنٹ کو آئین میں ترمیم کا حق نہ ہو. اسکا مطلب یہی ہے کہ آئین میں وقت اور ضرورت کے مطابق ترامیم ضروری ہوتی ہیں

    کسی فلم میں قوی خان نے ایک ڈائیلاگ بولا تھا جو اس موقع کے لحاظ سے مناسب لگتا ہے اور وہ تھا

    قانون بنانے والوں کو اپنے قانون کی صداقت پر اتنا یقین ہوتا تو وہ ایک عدالت کے اوپر دوسری عدالت اور دوسری عدالت پر تیسری عدالت نہ بٹھاتے

  • The constitution is made by waderas and feudals to protect them. It was not made for the benefit of the people of pakistan. In a talk show hasan nisar said "jinka mulk hay

    this constitution protect them" and is doing so to protect them. This needs to be changed by a new one. That is only possible only if poor people reach the assembly.

  • are shooting in the dark sire....

    How can you compare USA with Pakistan?? Its not fair, to mention Nixon and Zardari/Gilani in the same sentence....lollz..American leaders amend constitution for the benefit of their citizens, whereas, our leaders amend it to suit their looting sprees; civil or military makes no difference.

    Besides, how can masters and slaves act similarly for the mentalities of both are poles apart.....if we look in our immediate neighborhood we will find enough acts of morality and dignity that should make us hang our heads in shame.....what to talk of Europeons and American match, so not fair.

  • @Khan,

    Another similar comment on this issue:

    there are two things 1 core constitution to have how state will work and 2nd is day to day life law for human beings... it is fact both india and pakistan using English given law (human beings directly effect) and call as PPL (Tazerat-e-Pakistan) and IPL but we have our own constitution here JD case came under constitution. it was legislated by constitutional assembly of 1973 (that assembly had mandate to make new constitution, to have new one we will have to elect constitutional assembly also known as dastoor saz assembly. Existing parliament can do amendments only like 18th amendment , but cant re-factor the whole constitution

    So we don’t need to mix up two separate things

  • I believe we currently have constituent assembly currently in Gilgit Baltistan.