Shahzeb Khanzada Expert callsfor debate on contempt law
 

KARACHI: International laws expert Reema Umar said the contempt of court is treated under a 2003 ordinance and Article 63 of the Constitution which says contempt of court can cause disqualification of a parliamentarian.
Speaking in Geo News programme, Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath, she said the world has contempt laws similar to Pakistan but disqualification of a parliamentarian on the pattern on Article 63 is very rare. She said she doesn?t know any jurisdiction where contempt of court causes disqualification. She said freedom of expression is respected in the world and it is understood that judiciary can also be criticised. She said contempt of court is applied usually upon flouting of court orders. She said contempt law vis-a-vis ridiculing or scandalising court is as old as the courts associated with kings and ridicule of court was considered as ridicule of the king. She said Nehal Hashmi's case is different as his criticism is coupled with threats. She said in Pakistan, judiciary's role assumed a political posture during the era of Iftikhar Chaudhry. In such a situation, permission for an open talk on the role of judiciary becomes more important, and the judiciary should be tolerant towards that. She said debate is needed on how the judicial powers about suo motu notices and the contempt law are used.
She said that in many countries, court is independent but not accountable. She said the world is talking about judicial accountability, and in the South Asia, parliament has a role in judicial appointments and accountability. She said in India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, judges can be impeached but in Pakistan Supreme Judicial Council is the only body to hold judges accountable, adding that the Council is somewhat a redundant body. She said there is need to hold discussion on the court decision on the 18th Amendment in which it is deemed that the court could meet its independence only if its appointments and accountability fall in judiciary's own control, but the international standards are contrary to that.She said it is very for the executive to attack independence of judiciary and it has been seen in the name of accountability. She cited examples of Sri Lank and Nepal where the executive did not approve of judicial verdicts. But it is also very important that it becomes such an institution that it cannot be held accountable, she said, adding the chief justice had said that 2016 was the year of accountability of judiciary but nothing happened. She said it is perceived that 90 per cent cases are taken up by the SJC after the retirement of the judges' concerned.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/uCeQAXiySgE

أكثر...