Literature

“A (Parody) Decision to Remember” by Maaz Mahmood

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF NOWHERE

BEFORE A JUDGE OF SOMEWHERE

DECISION TO BE REMEMBERED FOR CENTURIES

The popular erotic novel “Fifty Shades of Grey” by E.L James narrates a magnificent story of Big Definitive Scary Males (also known as BDSM). One of the distinct dialogues in the novel is mentioned as:

“Feel it baby.”

E.L James

The novel was exceptional masterpiece except the fact that it couldn’t supersede “Buddha Gujjar” business on box office, here in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Alas! Such a waste of intellect. It is said that the previously mentioned response by Christian Grey was the consequence of below mentioned dialogue between Christian and Ana:

Christian: “Dr. Green is coming to sort you out…” 

Ana: “Why?” 

Christian: “Because I hate condoms …” 

Ana: “It’s my body.” 

Christian: “It’s mine, too.”

It is of great interest to this competent court as well as our learned representatives advocating both defendant and the petitioner that this case revolves around the very same attribute as that of Christian through Constitution Petition No. 69 of 2017. The petition has been filed by petitioner namely Mian Muhammed Nawaz Sharif alleging defendant namely Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi of the following grave allegations:

  1. Enjoying the private company of a British High Born lady of decorative fame namely Ms. Sita Jade White.
  2. Completing the criminal acts mentioned before without sharing to any of his “Sangi” or the best friend. 
  3. Using ill quality protection gloves. Bringing a hybrid Anglo-Indian child into this world. 
  4. Habitual U-Turn mastery. And;
  5. Not being Sadiq or Ameen before the parliament, this court, national institutions, high court, session court, Raja Bazar, Bau Muhalla, Sultan da Khoo, Hashtnagri, Gizri, Korangi, Satellite Town, DHA etc.

On the authority of Lord Reid in the case of Haughton v. Smith (1975 A.C. 476, 500) it is said that the law may sometimes be an ass and so can be one or two of the judges in the bench. I personally agree to Lord Reid with a minor modification of three, instead of two. Further to this, as per Sacha Baron Cohen’s inspiring movie The Dictator, “It’s not amazing, it’s just a little less shit.” where the Jew actor genuinely predicted today’s verdict in comparison to the 20th April 2017 historic decision by same court (Imran Khan and others VS Nawaz Sharif, 2017). Here is the complete precise verdict to be appended to history:

  1. It was a complicated case for this court of highest stature for various reasons. Firstly, the account of incidents as explained by learned counsel of petitioner compelled this court to dive into the realm of fascination to an extent that I wished to be an eye witness had the erotica between defendant and Sita Jade White actually occurred. Secondly, the repetitive U-Turns of defendant’s own account of story made the whole matter to be seen differently by this respected court of law (to be explained further in upcoming paragraphs).
  2. The petitioner tried his best to put this honorable court establishing a probe into adultery case happened decades ago. While it has been a validated truth regarding Sita Jade White and defendant’s (minor to minimum) acquaintance, when I searched the internet about British Heiress and her relationship with the defendant, I didn’t find anything of negative nature even to the most credible websites included but not restricted to the following:

http://www.insaf.pk

https://www.arynews.tv/

http://www.drshahidmasood.com/english-blogs/

The first allegation is therefore proved as baseless, foundation of which been laid over the personal grudge between the petitioner and the defendant (quite evident between the two, initiated by the petitioner namely Mian Nawaz Sharif who is constantly focused on the defendant for last half a decade). Go Nawaz Go!

  1. The second allegation by the petitioner is based on “Barney Stinson’s” famous principles on how a “bro” should behave with another “bro”. The principle as explained by Sir Barney Stinson is mentioned as:

“32: If a bro asks another bro to keep a secret, he shall take that secret to his Grave.”

– Barney Stinson 

The second clause of this judgment clearly confirms that nothing of such criminal offense is available on Internet provided and protected by the firewalls from Insaf Students Federation, therefore, any of such allegation is considered as discredited, disregarded by this learned court of law, especially when there’s nothing of such nature available on credible websites mentioned in same clause second of this verdict.

  1. The petitioner’s third allegation against defendant for “using ill quality protection gloves” is based on Imran Khan vs Sita Jade White (LA BF 009322, 1997) legal proceeding to throw paternity rights over the defendant. Alas! How can we even listen to a Yahudi Aurat?

The petitioner claims the story that illegitimate daughter of the defendant popped out because of low quality condoms. As observed in Marion Richardson vs London Rubber Company; (courtesy internet) one of the prime source of my wit – Ms. Richardson successfully won the lawsuit of £120,000 over the claims for loss of earnings, the discomfort, pain and inconvenience of the pregnancy and birth, and the cost of bringing up her daughter Kara, when the 37th Puncture accidentally appeared on the condom being used in May 1995. The learned court advises the defendant to file the similar lawsuit against the rubber company he utilized the products of, and simply dismisses the petitioner’s claim for this based on ill will.

  1. The petitioner’s fourth allegation is well acknowledged, proven from the various interviews in talk shows, jalsas, press conferences etc. and is being accepted by the court, however, based on the simple logic presented in this image:

It is very clear that double U-Turns brings one back to the same course he/she was following, therefore, court dismisses this allegation despite of the fact that the claim is true. Based on the Article 62, 63 of constitution blessed by Mard-e-Momin Mard-e-Haq Zia ul Haq Zia ul Haq; this court decides that if the defendant makes even number of U-turns, he isn’t against the compliance of said articles and henceforth, is freed from any such allegation. The petitioner may file another case in case the number of U-Turns made by defendant is in odd frequency with the relevant evidences and assurance that defendant will not make it even by making yet another U-Turn.

  1. The petitioner has already been proved not to be “Sadiq” and “Ameen” himself and henceforth, he can’t blame the defendant for the same as it may appear the case of “Wari Watta” before the nation (read media). Thousands of years ago, an anonymous wise man said the golden words that I would specifically want to fit in, right in this part of verdict, as a message to the petitioner ending this verdict:

    “Revenge? Nah, I’m too lazy. I’m gonna sit here and let Karma f*ck you up”.

– Anonymous

 

Justice Novelist Baluch

(Editor’s Note: Humor and Satire must not be taken as contempt and ability to laugh is distinctive human quality. We strongly respect every Judge from a lower court to the highest Appellate Court.)

Maaz Mahmood is a Dubai based blogger and IT professional who believes that wit can not be contempt. He always wanted to be a judge but never liked novels.

 

 

 

Facebook Comments
46 Comments

46 Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

To Top
Shares