Abdul Rauf Dhiman

  • Home
  • Abdul Rauf Dhiman

Abdul Rauf Dhiman Legal education, training, and mentorship for aspiring law students and professionals.

Excited to share that I have been selected as a member of the Prime Minister's National Youth Council. Grateful to .i.al...
24/12/2024

Excited to share that I have been selected as a member of the Prime Minister's National Youth Council. Grateful to .i.ali Rana Mashhood Ahmad Khan, Chairman for leading the way in inclusive policymaking and ensuring youth have a seat at the table.

Congratulations to all the other selected members โ€“ looking forward to collaborating and working together to drive positive change for our youth and country.

Had a preliminary meeting with .batool Member Advisory Board of Youth General Assembly to welcome her brief about the wo...
24/12/2024

Had a preliminary meeting with .batool Member Advisory Board of Youth General Assembly to welcome her brief about the working of YGA, our Projects and initiatives.

Attended the National Youth Summit organized by   and  on the themes of inclusivity and diversity. Young leaders from ac...
24/12/2024

Attended the National Youth Summit organized by and on the themes of inclusivity and diversity. Young leaders from across Pakistan gathered to celebrate the rich diversity of our nation, sharing stories, experiences, and ideas on how to create a more inclusive and united future.

In Pakistan, we might not have faced any issue of racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace but one based on the ...
01/11/2024

In Pakistan, we might not have faced any issue of racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace but one based on the language and access has been developed through many years.

๐—œ๐˜€ ๐—œ๐˜ ๐—ฎ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ป๐˜๐˜†, ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—ฎ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ณ๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฃ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ?Is this truly a victory for parliamentary sove...
21/10/2024

๐—œ๐˜€ ๐—œ๐˜ ๐—ฎ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ป๐˜๐˜†, ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—ฎ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ณ๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฃ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ?

Is this truly a victory for parliamentary sovereignty or is it just that the Judiciary has been recused from its previous role of being a rubber-stamp for legalizing Martial Laws and what not? THE PACKAGE (from Askari Parcel Services) has been delivered to Parliament, and what a relief that it is not a judgement this time, and has been bulldozed through the latest rubber-stamp.

One thing is crystal clear: this is neither a triumph for parliamentary sovereignty nor a historic moment for parliamentary history. Instead, it seems that the tool used to reinforce the will of the sovereign has simply changed.

As law students, we must recall THE JUDGES CASE, where the judiciary rewrote the Constitution by employing an expansive interpretation. In my view, a similar situation is unfolding today. The government, hiding behind the vague wording of Article 63-A, has managed to push through this latest amendment.

Article 63-A was originally inserted to prevent floor-crossing or defection by members of Parliament against party lines. However, the ambiguity lies in whether the vote of a defecting member will be counted, as this isn't clearly stated in the clause. In the governments interpretation, the vote is considered valid, which defeats the very purpose of the provision. While the clause does disqualify the defecting member, this loophole allows their vote to influence the outcome before disqualification.

This ambiguity should have been addressed in the broad scope of the recent amendment, but it was deliberately left untouched. Without this vague clause, the amendment likely couldn't have been passedโ€”horse trading being the only means to secure the necessary votes.

It's disheartening to see that this same Parliament which has witnessed the evil of Horse trading in the past is repeating the same mistakes. But perhaps thereโ€™s some "magic" in those treasury benchesโ€”those who sit upon them become blind to the consequences of their actions, forgetting that these very acts which they are passing will be used against them in not so distant future.

The concept of separation of powers is implied in our Constitution, though not in a strict sense. Nowhere does the Constitution make the judiciary the boss of other organs. The parliamentary system has been adopted in our constitution where there is relationship of mutual facilitation between the executive and the legislature, with the Prime Minister serving as the leader of the House and the judiciary functioning independently. However, the Constitution notably lacked any checks on the powers of the judiciary.

The Amendment has majorly targeted the third pillar of state, The Judiciary, which had acquired the power of suo moto through its power grabbing interpretation of the constitution which never explicitly stated that the Supreme Court would have such power. It has always interpreted the constitution to increase its own powers and with no check on its powers it has on several times interpreted the constitution for preservation of status quo.

The 26th Amendment has changed the procedure of appointment, fixed the tenure and introduced a performance evaluation clause of judges. Fortunately, It has established a constitutional bench in the supreme court instead of creating a new Constitutional Court which would have increased the already complex judicial structure and increased the load on federal exchequer.

As a law student, I'm happy that my institution may no longer be the rubber stamp and maybe the superior judiciary will have more grace. And they'll do the job for which they have been established, delivering justice, rather than staging political dramas under the guise of constitutional adjudication. All in all the Judiciary may now have more time for solving PETTY matters of ordinary citizens of my country and develop jurisprudence in that regard rather than becoming entangled in constitutional power struggles.

These amendments will have an overacrching impact on the independence of judiciary which in near past had started to act against the will of THE SOVEREIGN. While some checks on the judiciary were needed but this package appears to be an effort to tame the rebellious judiciary.

In conclusion, to claim that these amendments will result in a more functional judiciary and a truly sovereign Parliament would be misleading. In Pakistan, it is not that "no one is above the law"โ€”rather, the sovereign remains the omnipotent ruler, and the organs of state are mere toys of clay.

"๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐š๐ค๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ง: ๐€ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ž๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐ข๐ง๐  ๐‚๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ"In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP...
21/10/2024

"๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐š๐ค๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ง: ๐€ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ž๐ฉ๐ž๐ง๐ข๐ง๐  ๐‚๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ"

In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) ruled by a narrow margin of 8 to 5 on a contentious issue involving the reserved seats of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which had been previously denied by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and Peshawar High Court (PHC).

The SCP's decision nullified and declared unconstitutional the ECPโ€™s order dated March 1, 2024, which had denied reserved seats to the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), backed by PTI. The ECP had justified its decision on the grounds that SIC neither participated in the general elections as a party nor submitted a list of candidates for reserved seats for women and non-Muslims violating the mandatory provision of law. Whereas, the ECP exceeded its authority by allocating the vacant reserved seats to other parliamentary parties, a clear violation of the law.

Furthermore, the SCP declared that โ€œthe lack or denial of an election symbol does not in any manner affect the constitutional and legal rights of a political party to participate in an election and to field candidatesโ€ and that โ€œPakistan Tehreek e Insaf (โ€˜PTIโ€™) was and is a political party.โ€ The Supreme Court thus declared this contrary to Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017, and the proviso of Rule 94 of Election Rules 2017. The SCP rightly declared that a political partyโ€™s legal rights and its existence as a political party are not affected, but according to the law, a party without a symbol cannot participate in elections nor can it form a parliamentary party. So, the SCP has rewritten the Election Act and Rules 2017 encroaching on the role of the legislature.

PTIโ€™s decision to join hands with SIC has led to these technical legal issues, as SIC did not contest the elections as a party, did not win any general seats in the National Assembly, and its chairman contested the last general elections as an independent candidate and was elected as such.

The fallout from this decision has been swift and severe, highlighting deep divisions within the countryโ€™s power structures. The federal government's response to the SCPโ€™s ruling has been drastic and controversial. In what many view as a retaliatory move, the government has proposed to ban PTI, Pakistanโ€™s largest political party, on grounds that are vague and politically motivated. This move has sparked widespread concern and debate about the integrity of democratic processes in Pakistan.

The SCPโ€™s decision and the federal governmentโ€™s subsequent actions have laid bare the fraught power dynamics at the highest levels of the judiciary and the executive. The apparent rift between these two pillars of governance is not only unprecedented but also poses a significant threat to the nationโ€™s political and economic stability.

The consequences of this political turmoil are profound. The ongoing discord between the judiciary and the federal government is likely to worsen political instability, creating a volatile environment that could have far-reaching consequences for Pakistanโ€™s future. Such instability undermines investor confidence, disrupts economic growth, and hampers effective governance, ultimately harming the nationโ€™s socio-economic fabric.

As Pakistanis, it is imperative that we recognize the detrimental impact of continuous political drama on our democracy and economy. For the sake of a stronger democracy and a brighter future, it is crucial that all political actors and institutions work towards stability rather than perpetuating conflict.

The public and political leaders must come to a collective understanding that sustained political instability is a corrosive force, far more damaging to our economy than any external challenge. The way forward lies in upholding democratic norms, including the completion of the full term of elected governments. The opposition should prioritize national interest over partisan gains and support the government in addressing the pressing issues facing the country.

In conclusion, Pakistan stands at a crossroads. The current political crisis serves as a stark reminder of the need for unity and stability. By fostering a collaborative and supportive political environment, we can pave the way for a prosperous and democratic Pakistan, where governance is driven by the collective will of the people rather than the whims of power struggles.

โ€”Abdul Rauf Dhiman, Chief Operating Officer, Youth General Assembly

Picture source: Business Standard

Address

Constitution Avenue

44000

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Abdul Rauf Dhiman posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

  • Want your practice to be the top-listed Law Practice?

Share