All you need to know about the reason behind why Pakistan’s Supreme Court disqualified Nawaz Sharif and a comparison between the powers of Supreme Court of India and Pakistan to dismiss the President and Prime minister
Anu Bhatnagar, Amity Law School, AUMP
The whole world was suddenly flooded by the many huge names being defendant of storing unaccounted wealth in tax havens in numerous forms when the Panama Paper leaked. The list enclosed the names of the twelve world leaders who are either serving or ex-heads of the States. Some outstanding names like national leaders, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif, the Chinese President Xi Jinping and former PM of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto and many others.
Coming to the political scenarios of Pakistan where there is no stability in their political status at presently, Nawaz Sharif has further upset the country’s hope for stability or peace. A way back controversy of Panama paper leak in 2016 has been revealed now.
- Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on weekday resigned from his post, his workplace aforementioned, hours once the country’s Supreme Court disqualified him over corruption claims against his family.
Panama Papers: An insight
- The Panama Papers is a world cooperative project of around four hundred journalists from quite a hundred media organizations in over eighty countries UN agency worked on Associate in nursing unprecedented leak of 11.5 million files. These files are the records of the information of the Panama-based world’s fourth biggest offshore business firm named “Mossack Fonseca”.
- The records were leaked by the German newspaper “Suddeutsche Zeitung” that was obtained from Associate in nursing anonymous supply not nonetheless familiar. The German newspaper shared them with the International pool of fact-finding Journalism (ICIJ).
- The International pool of fact-finding Journalism then shared those papers with an outsized network of international partners as well as the Guardian and also the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).The leaked knowledge to the total size a pair of 2.6 terabytes contained 11.5 million documents of Mossack Fonseca firm that helped the investors round the world to evade tax, launder cash.
Comparison of Supreme Court’s power between two nations namely India and Pakistan under the regime of the President and Prime minister
To begin with India there is thirteen Presidents of Asian nation (not numeration people who control the charge temporarily), a pair of that died in workplace. Ten others retired from the workplace. Fourteenth President, Mr. Ram Nath Kovind is incumbent.
It is to be noted that the Impeachment motion has never been brought against any President of India, till date.
Removal of president and Prime minster: Indian Scenario
According to the article 61 Of the Indian Constitution the president may be impeached on a charge by either house of the parliament. the opposite house shall investigate the charge and if, as s results of the investigation, a resolution is gone a majority of not but simple fraction of the entire membership of the house by that the charge was investigated declaring that the charge against the president has been sustained, the president shall be off from his/her workplace.
Supreme Court may take away the president for the electoral malpractices beneath Article 71(1) of the Constitution. Under mentioned Article 361 of the Constitution, though’ president can’t be summoned for questioning except on his voluntary temperament to testify within the court in support of his disputable deeds, the unConstitutional choices taken by the president would be declared invalid by the courts. The case would be set by the courts supported the facts fitted out by the union government for the president’s role.
Secondly, If we talk about the status of removal for India’s prime minister, it may be Constitutionally done by the either of the houses of the parliament. Since it has been seen that the Supreme Court many times warn the MPs and MLAs regarding the corruption and shall punish them for disqualification, but also assert that since the selection of MLAs and MPs is done by Prime Minister, therefore the apex court always warn about the activities and don’t recruit the corrupt minister. It has been found from the resources non stringent action has been taken as of now.
Removal of president and Prime minster: Indian Scenario
As the incident has been stated earlier that recently the Supreme Court has disqualified the Pakistan’s Prime Minister on the concrete grounds of Corruption. Further section is dealing with the Constitutional norms.
Not but half of the whole membership of either house will move a resolution for the removal of the president. If, when investigation, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not but two-third of the whole membership of Parliament declaring that the president is unfit to carry the workplace, the President shall stop to carry the workplace on the passing of the resolution.
It is informative to note that the Supreme Court enjoys a robust jurisdiction within the country together with on the federal, provincial governments, governmental agencies, NGOs, and wherever the govt. and governmental agencies fail to perform its mandated duty to guard the essential human rights or deviating from the law in lightweight of taking the Suo Motu notice.
The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its powers of contempt of court to penalize anyone or associate authority found of scandalizing, abusing, busy, and obstructing the procedures of the court or its rulings. In 2001–2002, there have been extra amendments created that additional empowers the Supreme Court and its institutional powers to affect any federal authority found on the fees of the contempt of court.
In a much-publicized case, the Supreme Court effectively used its Constitutional powers once it ceased Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani from running the govt. once the court found him guilty of contempt of court charges– hence disqualified the prime minister from holding any public offices within the country.
In conclusion, the author would like to conclude by stating that the belief which the general citizen of any country posses must not get defeated at any cost. The safeguards which are provided by any Constitution in the name of organs namely legislative, executive and judiciary should perform their task or duties in accountable and responsible manner. Only this purpose will fulfill the criteria of Democracy in every nation for the people, to the people and by the people. And also, will decrease such above mentioned unfortunate cases in future. Moreover it will increase the amount of faith in Supremacy of law.