LAHORE-The issuance of Presidential Ordinance while the National Assembly is in session is sheer violation of Constitution because the Constitution has explicitly barred President from exercising this power. The Constitutional experts say that Article 89 of the Constitution though empowers President to promulgate Ordinance but he could do it after fulfilling the two conditions. The first condition is that the National Assembly should not be in session and second is that if there is need for immediate action. The experts say that both the conditions were not met in the present case as Assembly was in business and there were no such circumstances that required an immediate action. The Presidential action could not be termed as a valid one and it should be withdrawn and a bill should be tabled in the National Assembly to do legislation through a proper channel, they opined. They say this move amounts to lowering the dignity of Parliament that had been the hallmark of all the dictatorial regimes who had made Parliament either a rubber stamp or subservient to them. The legislation is the duty of the Parliament and the President should not interfere in it unnecessarily. Article 89 says the President may, except when the National Assembly is in session, if satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action, make and promulgate an Ordinance, as the circumstances may require. The experts are of the view that the main object of inserting this in the Constitution was that the president could do legislation in extra-ordinary circumstances that was not the case in present situation. They pointed out that the Supreme Court had held in various judgments that word 'satisfaction' should not be taken in its ordinary meaning rather the President should record reasons that compelled him to use his power under this article. On the other hand, the lawyers came hard on the establishment of mobile courts and termed it an attempt to frighten lawyers and masses from participating in the long march and subsequent sit-in. These mobile courts would be remembered as the remnant of civil dictatorial regime. They say PPP had criticised Pervez Musharraf for doing the same but now their own party head is taking unconstitutional steps that amounts to bypassing Parliament. Newly elected Secretary Lahore High Court Bar Association Muqtidar Akhtar Shabbir has straightway rejected mobile court saying that such black laws could not stop lawyers from taking part in the long march. He said the lawyers are a peaceful community and believe in non-violence and they had demonstrated it throughout their two years long movement despite the fact they suffered severe beating at the hand of dictatorial regime. Justice(Retd) Tariq Mahmood said setting up mobile court is a 'constitutional dishonesty' as Federal govt has devised a tool to crush lawyers movement but the brave lawyers are ready to face all odds. He pointed out that Pervez Musharraf had also made such black laws in the past but he failed to control lawyers popular movement and lawyers perseverance poured cold water on his desires.