ISLAMABAD, Sept 6: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, on Monday said that no institution in a democratic system could substitute parliament.
"Supremacy of parliament cannot be challenged except in accordance with the Constitution, and only the public opinion can change the views of parliament," the chief justice said while speaking at the opening ceremony for the judicial year 2004-05, of the Supreme Court here at the apex court building.
Presiding over the ceremony, the chief justice observed that no institution could dictate parliament, and assured all sections of society that he would endeavour to strengthen the rule of law and to ensure that all citizens enjoyed fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
However high the legal and moral principles might be, they were of no effect if there was no rule of law in the country, the chief justice observed and expressed the hope that he would continue to enjoy the trust of the Bar to achieve this goal.
Referring to recent elevation of three judges in the Supreme Court, the chief justice observed that though the president was competent to appoint all the 17 judges from anywhere, even from one place or one town, in a parliamentary system, every federating unit has a right of representation in the Supreme Court.
Mentioning about the recommendations the chief justice had made to the president to fill the four vacant seats in the apex court, he said at the time when he had suggested the names, there were only three judges from Punjab when it should be eight. This is against the unwritten quota according to which eight judges should be from Punjab, five from Sindh, two from the NWFP and one from Balochistan.
Therefore, the chief justice said, he had asked for three judges from the Lahore High Court, of which two of them had come and one had not. "I will not say anything about the judge who has not come because a petition challenging his stay has been filed," he said.
The chief justice also mentioned four judgments of the Supreme Court in which new principles of law strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the Islamic law were laid down. He referred to Hafiz Abdul Waheed vs Mrs Asma Jahangir in which it was held that consent of a Wali was not required and a girl could enter into marriage of her own free will.
Similarly, in the case of Jamil Ahmed Malik vs Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board, it was held that to maintain proper discipline in public sector, it was necessary to place certain restrictions on the freedom of speech of the government servant.
In the case of Shaikh Amjad Aziz vs Haroon Akhtar Khan, the concept of thrown-away votes were decided. In the case of Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan, Article 15 of the Constitution was interpreted and it was held that every citizen, who was out of Pakistan, has the right to come back. Restrictions can be placed on a person on his going out, but vice versa is not permissible.
