Accordingly, the Supreme Court has informed the Speaker that the relevant clauses should be passed by a special majority in Parliament and also by a referendum.
Following is the full Supreme Court judgment.
I would like to inform Parliament that I have received the decision of the Supreme Court on the Bill, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which has been challenged before the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 121 (1) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has given the following judgment.
(i) Articles 4 (b) of the Constitution in Articles 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,23,24,26,27,28 and 36 of the Bill Contains provisions that are inconsistent with Article 3, which must be read, and those provisions of the relevant Bill may be enacted in accordance with Article 84 (2) of the Constitution, which was passed by Parliament by a special majority, in accordance with Article 83 by the people. Only by approving at trial.
(ii) Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill contain provisions which are inconsistent with Article 4 (e) of Article 3 of the Constitution, and accordingly those provisions of the relevant Bill can be enacted, 84 of the Constitution ( 2) Passed by Parliament with a special majority as required by the Constitution, only by popular vote in accordance with Article 83 of the Constitution.
(iii) Article 14 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 3 (b) of Article 4 (b) of the Constitution as it stands and, accordingly, that Article of the relevant Bill may be enacted in Article 84 (2) of the Constitution. As it is done, it was passed in Parliament by a special majority, only by the people approving it in accordance with Article 83 in a referendum. Nevertheless, if the proposed Article 41 (a) (1) is amended appropriately to remove the provision described above, the proposed Article 41 (a) (6) allows the President to appoint one person as his nominee, a member of the House. If the opportunity arises, the need for a referendum is negated;
(iv) Article 19 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 4 (b) of the Constitution, which must be read in conjunction with Article 4 (b), and can be enacted by a special majority as provided in Article 84 (2) and by a referendum held in accordance with Article 83 Only if approved by;
(v) Article 30 (a) of the Bill seeks to limit the jurisdiction of the people, so that Article is inconsistent with Article 4 (c) and Article 4 (e) of Article 3 of the Constitution, and Article 3 Is only if it is approved by the people by a special majority as stated in Article 84 (2) and by a referendum held in accordance with Article 83;
(vi) As Article 39 of the Bill seeks to repeal Article 129 (1) of the Constitution, Article 84 (2) can be enacted as it is inconsistent with Article 3 (b) of Article 3 (b) of the Constitution. As stated only by a special majority and approved by the people in a referendum held in accordance with Article 83;
(vii) As Article 43 of the Bill is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 3 of Article 4 (b) of the Constitution, it may therefore be enacted by a special majority in accordance with Article 84 (2) and in accordance with Article 83 Only if approved by the people at the next referendum; and
(VIII) Among other matters falling under Article 51 of the Bill, it is expected to introduce Authority XIX-A, which will be chaired by the Prime Minister. As the proposed Articles 156 (1) and 156 (2) are inconsistent with Articles 1, 2 and 3 to be read in conjunction with Articles 4 (b) of the Constitution, they may therefore be enacted by a special majority in accordance with Articles 84 (2) and 83 Only if the people approve the constitution in a referendum held in accordance with the Constitution: However, if Articles 156 (1) and 156 (2) are amended to change the composition of the proposed National Security Council and make the President the Chair of the proposed House, then Such inconsistency would be negated.
I order that the decision of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of the Business of the House for today. ”
No comments:
Post a Comment