MUNIR HUSSAIN BHATTI versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Arts 175A and 184 (3) of the National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Section 6 (2) (i) of the Parliamentary Committee made under Article 75A of the Constitution, questions of the lawyer's justification statement for the Federation That the question of justification of the decisions was made by the seventeen-member Larger Bench in the petitions filed to challenge the wires of the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, and after that, this Bench should wait for the decision of the Big Bench, Regarding receipt of a decision on current applications, the Council held that current petitions challenge the role of the Committee and such Was a first attempt at damages before the full court had the opportunity to decide on the challenged applications on the 18th. The accuracy of the amendment The Supreme Court observed that the scope of the present petitions was materially different from the scope of the hearing of these petitions. The Big Bench estimated the validity of the 18th and 19th Amendment Petitioners in the present petitions. In the meantime, a judicial interpretation of the amendments has been sought only for the purpose of its challenge seeking judicial review of the decisions taken by the Committee. There is an executive body intended to be taken under Article 175A of the Constitution while the authority of Parliament has been challenged to amend the constitution in the petitions before the larger bench so any decision in the present petitions is decided only by the committee's unpleasant decisions. Will be. And not on ratification of the constitution
