GOHAR NAWAZ SINDHU versus MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF
Arts 62 (1) (F), 63 (1) (G), 66, 69 and 199 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 (1) Intra-Court Appeal Constitutional Request in which the High Court disqualifies the Prime Minister The political question of "lying" in Parliament was not valid in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, but it was also that the Prime Minister's statement on the floor of the National Assembly was The Department of Public Relations (ISPR) has declared the dispute controversial. Armed Forces; that such a Prime Minister made a false statement, and did not fulfill his qualifications for membership of Parliament because he was not "honest" and "trustworthy". And since the Prime Minister had defamed Pakistan's armed forces and was responsible for disqualification under Article 63 (1) (g) of the Constitution, the current issue raised a political question, which is in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. There was no justice. To address a political question, the constitution, as well as the conduct and code of conduct in the National Assembly, had to be placed before a prime minister's forum in 2007 alleging "lies" against the prime minister, but there were adequate and appropriate procedures. The same was not done in the present case, so Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution did not draw attention to whether or not certain statements were given, who made such statements and what background and context. Need to Investigate Reality in Context? In fact, the inquiry was not generally done by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction; the Prime Minister cannot be disqualified under Article 63 (1). (G) The constitution allegedly defamed Pakistan's armed forces. M
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
