Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

COURT P:

1. In court P all the principles of natural justice are abide by. There are instances where the courts deviated from them but generally speaking they follow the golden principle "Audi Alteram Partem" (No body should be condemned unheard). Even if the government wants to take action against some one it gives a reasonable notice to that person to do the needful and also inform the person of non compliance of orders/directions of the government. Even if government neglect this principle, the courts take the action and allow the parties to present their version about the case. There are no instances in these courts where some orphan is deprived of his/her right and the government occupied his/her land illegally without notice to that person.

References:

http://legalperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/07/audi-alteram-partem-natural-justice.html

http://www.pljlawsite.com/html/PLJ2011CR16.htm

2. In court P this is settled principle that no one can be the judge of his own cause. Nemo iudex in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause. Even if a judge is interested in some cause due to some relation with one of the parties, he sends the case to the big judge to fix the case for adjudication before some other court so that the justice is done and he does not decide his own case.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

3. In Court P, it is written in the constitution that every law shall be made in accordance with Quran and Sunnah and no law in contradiction of Quran and Sunnah will be declared void.

COURT A:

1. in Court A all the principles of natural justice were violated. The Court occupied the land of an orphan without notice to her. So the orphan was condemned unheard and her land was occupied illegally and unlawfully in clear violation of natural justice.

2. In Court A the Judge was not only interested in the cause rather he was the party of the case himself but still he opted to decide the case and unilaterally illegally occupied the land of the orphan.

3. The judge invented a hadith in clear violation of Quran. Quran did not provide any exception for a woman from her right in the property left by her predeceased but he made a self made hadith in violation of Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...