Article 184 – interpreting it paradoxically

As far as the interpretation of the article 184 is concerned, common-sense understanding is altogether different. It has three clauses that form the whole of this article. Its title is: The Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

The first clause states: (1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of every other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between any two or more governments.

The second clause states: (2) In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by clause (1), the Supreme Court shall pronounce declaratory judgments only.

The third and the last clause states: (3) Without prejudice to …

Continue Reading →

The perils of judicial populism

Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to the pressures of the times.

– Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), Chief Justice, US Supreme Court.
The best thing that explains the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) July 20 judgment is: it is never too late to mend. As is being claimed, the judgment is historic, it is daring, it is a people’s verdict, and a turning point in Pakistan’s history. Of course, it is all these or maybe more, but things are meaningful only in a

Continue Reading →

The perils of judicial populism

Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to the pressures of the times.
– Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), Chief Justice, US Supreme Court.

The best thing that explains the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) July 20 judgment is: it is never too late to mend. As is being claimed, the judgment is historic, it is daring, it is a people’s verdict, and a turning point in Pakistan’s history. Of course, it is all these or maybe more, but things are meaningful only in a context. Without context, they lose their import. This is

Continue Reading →