Talk:PCO Judges case

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan High‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Multiple Issue

I'm still improving it. yousaf465'

I can help you on this.... Actually the case wasn't about the PCO judges...The case was about two judges (Zafar Ahmed khan sherwani, and one more...) who refused to take oath under the PCO, rather they took their oaths under 1973 constitution with the remaining judges.... Now the PCO judges were actually considered extra-constitutional, but these two judges were also being considered the same as PCO, while they weren't... Hence the case was filed and they came out victorious and restored on July 31... But this case, actually brought up the issue of PCO and the emergency, eventhough it was not the part of the actual case filed... Adil your (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess RizVisa1 has a lot more info, he literally made the article for you.. Great job.... Adil your (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please ask him. We need to expand it further.yousaf465' 14:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also being covered in "Supreme Court of Pakistan Topic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intexture (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I'm doing a major overhaul of this article, as much of it was difficult to understand and biased. It's a bit of a work in progress. I still haven't gotten to the lead or to the reactions section, but I've rewritten a lot of the body. I've also removed the long tables from the article -- they can either be consolidated and re-added, or left out completely. I am not at all familiar with the subject matter of this article and am drawing what I can from news articles. If I am misunderstanding something, please do change it or let me know. Thank you! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 04:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: Will work to try to reintegrate this ref. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)~~ Done. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 03:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]