Federal Cabinet gives nod to amendment in Army Act: sources
The Federal Cabinet on Wednesday held an emergency meeting to discuss and approve the amendment in Army Act as directed by the Supreme Court in Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa extension case, sources told Geo News.
It is expected that the government will table the bill in the current session of the parliament.
President Arif Alvi had on Tuesday convened a session of both the upper and lower house of the parliament on a twenty-four hour notice.
- Legislation within six months -
The apex court in its detailed verdict on December 16 had asked the government to legislate on the matter within six months.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by former chief justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had heard the case.
In the judgement, the SC stated that it was now up to the parliament to carry out legislation that will provide "certainty and predictability" to the post of COAS for all times to come.
“We would like to emphasize that this crucial matter of the tenure of COAS and its extension, which has a somewhat chequered history, is before Parliament, to fix for all times to come,” said the detailed judgment.
Earlier, in August Prime Minister Imran Khan extended General Bajwa’s tenure through a notification however, the Supreme Court on November 26 suspended the notification.
- Review petition -
Ten days after the detailed order, the federal government filed a review petition for leave to appeal under Article 188 of the Constitution against the apex court judgment delivered on Nov 28.
The government submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in law and facts and is completely without jurisdiction, void ab initio and of no legal effect.
In its review petition, the government questioned as to whether glaring omissions and patent mistakes have crept into the impugned judgment, violating the law, Constitution and public policy and are floating on the surface.
It further questioned as to “Whether Article 243(3) of the Constitution is independent of Article 240(a) of the Constitution. And whether the Army Regulations (Rules), 1998 (ARR) has constitutional protection under Article 241?”
The government contended that the errors in the impugned judgment, pointed out below, are so manifest that they float on the surface. It is respectfully pointed out that if the said errors had been noticed prior to the rendition of the impugned judgment, this court would have arrived at a different conclusion.
from The News International - Pakistan https://ift.tt/2QetVWz
0 Comments