There will be no compromise on the supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif'

 There will be no compromise on the supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament

 A full court would have been formed for the reputation and justice of the judiciary so that justice would be seen. Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif's reaction to the Supreme Court decision

Islamabad (Urdu Point Newspaper Latest. 26 July 2022) Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif has said that he will not compromise on the supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament.  Seen too.  Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision on Twitter, he said that the Constitution has assigned state powers to the Parliament, Administration and Judiciary.

 The constitution has mandated all the institutions to work within the specified limits.  No institution can interfere with the authority of another.  There will be no compromise on the supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament.  He said that the requirement of the reputation of the judiciary and the quality of justice was that a full court would have been formed so that justice would not only be done but also seen to be done, but the judicial decision would fulfill the expectations of the legal community, citizens, the media and the people for justice. 

Similarly, PML-N leader and former Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif said in his reaction to the Supreme Court's decision regarding the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab that Pakistan has been made a spectacle.

Salutations to the three judges. Likewise, PML-N Central Vice President Maryam Nawaz said in her tweet that the killing of justice is unacceptable! The public's question is why two different decisions in the same case? The Tehreek-e-Insaf system disapproved, Maryam Nawaz termed the Supreme Court's decision as 'judicial'.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has announced the decision of the deputy speaker assembly rolling case, the decision of the Supreme Court consists of 11 pages, the detailed decision will be announced later. has been declared null and void, this ruling has no status, the Supreme Court has accepted Parvez Elahi's request, the Supreme Court has ordered the Governor of Punjab to administer oath to Parvez Elahi as the Chief Minister, the Governor of Punjab should take the oath at 11:30 pm. All the appointments of Hamza Shehbaz as Chief Minister were declared null and void.

Earlier, during the hearing on the petitions against the ruling of the Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly, during the three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly's lawyer Irfan Qadir and PPP's lawyer Farooq H. Naik did not take part in the court proceedings. decided to People's Party's lawyer Farooq Naik also informed about the boycott of the proceedings, then the Chief Justice spoke to him saying that you are not a party to the case? The Chief Justice remarked that the demand for the formation of a full court is nothing but a delaying tactic, the full court is not available until the second week of September, our priority is to deal with this matter as soon as possible.

Who can give instructions to the members? It is clear from the reading of the constitution that the instructions are given by the parliamentary party, no further legal arguments are needed to answer this question, it was not a question that would have constituted a full court.

The Chief Justice remarked during the hearing that the lawyers of the parties had been told that the constitution does not allow obstruction in governance, the caretaker cabinet headed by the president was annulled by the Supreme Court in 1988, the court's position was that the cabinet could not function without the prime minister.

can The Chief Justice declared that if the decision on Article 63A was made by 9 members, it would be called a majority, those who boycotted the court should show patience, if they have boycotted, listen to the court proceedings.

The Chief Justice remarked that no lawyer had argued the instructions in the Article 63A case. The court needs support on the instructions of the party leader or parliamentary party directions.

The Chief Justice's lawyer, Ali Zafar, was instructed to assist with the questions or else we will be separated from the bench.

Friends who know me know that I treat my work as a form of worship. The petitions against were rejected in accordance with Article 134, the reasons for rejecting the petitions were written separately by many judges.

The petitioner's lawyer told the Supreme Court that in the Eighteenth Amendment case, Justice Jawad Khawaja declared Article 63A unconstitutional, he was of the opinion that 63A prevents members from voting freely. I have not explained the reasons for my opinion, that's why I do not agree with Justice Jawad Khawaja's opinion.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked Barrister Ali Zafar that what does the Constitution say about whose instructions should be given to vote? Separated from the party leader? Parvaizalhi's lawyer said that the parliamentary party and the party leader are two different things.

Justice Ijaz remarked that under the constitution, the party leader implements the decision of the parliamentary party. No, the decision of the political party is communicated to the parliamentary party, on which it decides.

Ali Zafar clarified that during the Musharraf era, the law of the parliamentary leader replaced the party leader, the 18th amendment abolished Pervez Musharraf's law. .

On this occasion, Justice Muneeb Akhtar inquired that what is the definition of a party leader? Is the party chief only the head of the political party? Justice Ejazalah