Islamabad: The Supreme Court has issued a detailed decision on the NAB Amendments case in the ratio of 2:1, in which the dissenting note of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has also been made a part.
The verse of Surah Anfal has been mentioned in the beginning of the detailed decision issued by the Supreme Court.
The majority written decision states that former Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf made the NAB law and applied it from January 1, 1985. The references of the accountability courts were affected by the amendment of the NAB law in 2022.
It has been said in the decision that 386 references were returned from accountability courts after NAB amendments in 2022, 212 NAB references were returned from amendments in 2023, 598 references were returned from NAB amendments so far.
According to the decision issued by the Supreme Court, among the references returned from the NAB amendments, 35 references are related to politicians. 327 NAB references will be sent back from accountability courts in 2022 due to fixing the limit of 50 crores.
read more: The Supreme Court invalidated some NAB amendments, reinstated corruption cases against politicians
It has been mentioned in the decision that according to NAB data, out of 598 references, only 54 references were sent to other courts, seventeen references were transferred to customs court while four cases were transferred to banking courts.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s dissenting note
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wrote in the dissenting note that I read the majority decision last night, with which I do not agree, due to lack of time I will issue the detailed reasons for my dissenting note later, the main question is not about NAB amendments but 24 Crore belongs to the elected parliament of the people.
Also read: The Supreme Court invalidated some NAB amendments, reinstated corruption cases against politicians
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wrote that the main question is the importance of the constitution in a parliamentary democracy and the division of powers of the state, the main question is about the limits of decision-making by unelected judges on the law passed by the parliament without violating the fundamental rights. .
He wrote that ‘in my opinion the majority decision failed to understand that the powers of the state are to be exercised by the elected representatives of the people, the majority decision also failed to understand the analogy of the division of powers given in the Constitution which is a democratic system. , the question in the case was not of illegal amendments but of supremacy of Parliament’.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah wrote that the majority decision failed to understand the powers of the Parliament, the power of Parliament to legislate never ends, if the Parliament can enact the NAB law, it can also withdraw and amend it. , I disagree with the majority judgment and dismiss the petition.
(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;}
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3&appId=770767426360150”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.7”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));