Thread on majority judgment in the #JusticeQaziFaezIsa case. Read these extracts if you can’t go through all the 224 pages - some very important points have been raised/clarified which will be relevant beyond just this Reference. Starts with concept of ‘Justice’:
Highlights the prayer by the petitioner:
54 questions of law - main contentions being as follows:
What is misconduct:
Responsibilities of the family members of a Judge - requirement to be careful - “financially, socially and politically”:
Re SAPM Accountability:
Re surveillance:
Re requirements to be met in respect of a Reference sent by the President:
Re authorization to commence an investigation prior to a Presidential Reference:
Re requirement to provide the relevant person an opportunity to explain source of funds:
Re “application of mind” by President:
Conclusion re defects in the Reference:
Re why Reference is being quashed:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Taimur Malik

Taimur Malik Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @taimur_malik

19 Dec 19
Now that we appear unanimous in condemning para 66 of the main judgment re Musharraf by J W. Seth, time to read and reflect on pertinent points raised by J Nazar Akbar in his dissenting note - by far the most incisive part of the 169 page document - he shows a mirror to many:
Para 11 - he highlights that it was only in 2010 that the 18th Amendment added the words ‘suspension’ and ‘abeyance’ to the definition of High Treason which till then was restricted to acts of ‘abrogation’ or ‘subversion’
Para 14 - discusses why the acts of 3rd November 2007 couldn’t constitute ‘abrogation’ or ‘subversion’
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!