Constitutional Amendments And Judiciary

Summary

The reconstitution of Articles 175A and 191A of Pakistans Constitution raises questions about its legality. Arguments against it being ultra vires include the Parliaments authority to amend the Constitution, ensuring judicial independence, and the democratic process involved. Conversely, arguments for it being ultra vires cite the basic structure doctrine, potential infringement on judicial autonomy, and procedural flaws. The doctrine of basic structure, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, asserts that fundamental constitutional features cannot be altered. Pakistani case law, such as Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan, emphasizes judicial independence. The removal of suo moto powers is debated as an attack on judicial independence, with cases like Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan highlighting the judiciarys role in maintaining checks and balances. Judicial impartiality is crucial, as seen in Al-Jehad Trust and Asad Ali cases.

Full Conversation

Explain doctrine of basic structure with case law and independence of judiciary with pakistani caselaw

Sure, let's break it down.

Doctrine of Basic Structure:
The doctrine of basic structure is a judicial principle that certain fundamental features of a constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the legislature. This doctrine was first established by the Indian Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (*). The court ruled that while the Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or framework.
Key Points:
- The basic structure includes the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary.
- Any constitutional amendment that seeks to alter these fundamental features is deemed unconstitutional.

Independence of Judiciary (Pakistani Case Law):
In Pakistan, the independence of the judiciary is a critical component of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently upheld this principle in various rulings.
Relevant Case Law:
- Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (*): Also known as the Judges' Case, the Supreme Court emphasized the independence of the judiciary and ruled that the executive must ensure the appointment of judges based on merit.
- **Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (

Removal of suo moto is attack on independence of judiciary with caselaws

To discuss whether the removal of suo moto powers is an attack on the independence of the judiciary, we can refer to relevant case laws and principles related to the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan.

Key Points:
- Suo Moto Powers: These are the powers of the judiciary to initiate cases on its own, without a formal complaint being filed.
- Independence of Judiciary: This principle ensures that the judiciary operates without undue influence from the executive or legislative branches.

Relevant Case Laws:
- Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (*): This case emphasized the importance of judicial independence, highlighting that the judiciary must be free from executive control in matters of appointments and administration.
- Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (*): The Supreme Court reinforced that any actions undermining the judiciary's independence, including interference in its functions, are unconstitutional.

Arguments:
- Against Removal of Suo Moto:
- Judicial Oversight: Suo moto powers are essential for the judiciary to act independently, ensuring checks and balances.
- Public Interest: These powers allow the judiciary to address issues of public interest and protect fundamental rights without waiting for formal complaints.
- **For Removal of

Whether the constitutional bench hear against its on creation with caselaws

Case Rating: *
To determine if a constitutional bench can hear a case against its own creation, here are some general principles and considerations:
- Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of their own actions if it pertains to the interpretation and upholding of the Constitution.
- Precedent: Cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (*) set a precedent where the judiciary reviewed amendments to the Constitution, ensuring they did not alter its basic structure.
- Independence: Ensuring judicial independence is crucial. The judiciary must have the power to review actions to maintain checks and balances.
Would you like more details or specific case laws related to this question?

Discuss it in detail

Case Rating: *
To determine if a constitutional bench can hear a case against its own creation, consider the following points:
- Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of their own actions if it pertains to the interpretation and upholding of the Constitution.
- Precedent: Cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (*) set a precedent where the judiciary reviewed amendments to the Constitution, ensuring they did not alter its basic structure.
- Independence: Ensuring judicial independence is crucial. The judiciary must have the power to review actions to maintain checks and balances.
Relevant Case Laws:
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (*): The Supreme Court of India held that the judiciary has the power to review and ensure that the actions of the Parliament do not violate the Constitution.
- Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (*): Emphasized judicial independence and the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution.
Arguments:
- For Judicial Review:
- Constitutional Safeguard: Allows the judiciary to ensure that any amendments do not undermine the Constitution’s basic structure.
- **Checks and Bal

Against the recent question

Case Rating: *
It seems you are dealing with complex constitutional issues regarding the independence of the judiciary and the scope of judicial review in Pakistan. Here are some additional points for your argument:

Additional Points for Judicial Independence:
- Case: Asad Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan (*): Reinforced the principle that the judiciary must operate independently and free from influence by other branches of government.
- Judicial Precedent: Emphasizes that the judiciary has the mandate to review and strike down any legislation or amendment that compromises its independence.

Arguments Against Judicial Review:
- Constitutional Mandate: The judiciary must respect the constitutional power vested in the Parliament.
- Precedent: Courts may defer to Parliament's judgment unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Would you like to discuss any other particular case or aspect in more detail?

Give me ore details on it

Case Rating: *
Can you please specify which particular aspect or case you would like more details on? It would help to narrow down the focus.

Code of conduct of supreme court article * against constitutional bench

Case Rating: *
To better understand your situation, could you clarify what specific issue or concern you have with the Code of Conduct of the Supreme Court under Article * as it relates to the constitutional bench?

Judge must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interests vs formation of constitutional bench appointed by judicial commission having legislative members

Case Rating: *
It seems you are dealing with a situation where there could be a conflict of interest involving judges. Here’s some information that could help:

General Principles:
- Judicial Impartiality: Judges must avoid situations where their impartiality might be questioned.
- Code of Conduct: Under Article * of the Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court, judges must not act in cases where they have a personal interest.

Questions:
- Are you dealing with a specific case where a judge might have a conflict of interest?
- Which court is handling this matter?
Understanding these details can help provide more precise information.

Caselaw on judicial impartiality

Case Rating: *
To provide relevant case law on judicial impartiality, here are some key points:
- Judicial Impartiality: Judges must be unbiased and avoid conflicts of interest.
- Code of Conduct: Judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal interest.
Relevant Case Laws:
- Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (*): Emphasized the importance of judicial independence and impartiality.
- Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (*): Reinforced that judges must operate free from external influences and personal interests.
Would you like more specific details on any of these points?

Constitutional Amendments And Judiciary

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats