JUSTICE HASNAT AHMED KHAN versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN/STATE
204 and 70 Judicial Ordinance (V 2003), Section 19 (iii) Interim Constitution Order (1 of 2007) Office (Judges) Order, Court of Appeal passed by a seven-member bench of disobedience for a contempt of court appeal order 2007 The Supreme Court, held by the appellants / judges of the High Courts under the Constitution Order, 2007 and the Office of Judges (Judges) Order, 2007, held the date of 3 11 2007, constitutionally as the appellate and other high court judge positions. Were not holding. In the absence of validation, correction and justification of the unconstitutional actions, actions, omissions and commissions of the then Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf (Retired) under which he imposed martial law in the name of emergency on 3 11 2007. What, that continued. Appellants read with the Oath Order on 15 April 2007 and under oath under the PCO 2007, 2007 ceased to hold their positions because the PCO, 2007 and the Oath Order, 2007 were declared unconstitutional in s. Was given. It is understood that such unconstitutional measures, errors and commissions were not endorsed by the case of the Indian High Court Bar Association (PLD 2009 SC 679) and the intervention of the Legislature in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Constitutional Amendments. The members of the Supreme Court were not ordinary people, in their view, to know the end of it, and to be responsible for the administration of justice while respecting the High Courts and also to write down all the rules on their sleeves. That is, they could not claim that constitutional deviations could be corrected by a dictator despite the court's decision. In addition to legislative intervention by Parliament, it was also justified, therefore, by amending the Constitution, because a
