Hermoine Green
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2017
- Runs
- 3,384
-
Contact the PP Team
‘Mother of all institutions’: Contempt of Parliament bill sails through NA
- Thread starter Hermoine Green
- Start date
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
Just topi drama. I have no faith in CJP Bandial.
Extra_Cover
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Runs
- 2,037
- Post of the Week
- 8
Big decisions off late. Looks like pendulum has swung and door is shut on imported government.
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
Its called buying time. Has the CJP been asleep as these thugs have run amok, killing and threatening people that work in these institutions. Who made the decision to put Dr Rizwan on the no fly list and Why? What did he do that was illegal? The money was in the Accounts of the Sharifs? Who put it there? Who is Maqsood Chaprasi?
Extra_Cover
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Runs
- 2,037
- Post of the Week
- 8
I agree and indeed there should be an accountability. What happened with Dr Rizwan is unforgivable and I hope this step in the right direction is just the start and that this time we actually see justice being delivered. For a start please someone take suo muto notice on Nazim Jokhio's case. Criminal cases should take precedence over political cases.
silentkiller187
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Runs
- 5,483
The Supreme Court on Thursday barred authorities from making new appointments and transferring officials involved in "high-profile" and National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases as well as those being heard by special courts.
The directives came as a five-judge larger bench took up the suo motu case on apprehensions that criminal justice might be undermined by people in positions of authority. The bench comprised Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar.
The court also issued notices to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general, the NAB chairman and the interior secretary. The court asked the parties concerned to give an explanation as to why there was "interference" in criminal cases, and stopped the NAB and FIA from withdrawing cases till further orders.
Notices were also issued to all the provincial prosecutor generals and advocate generals.
In addition, the FIA and NAB were asked to provide an explanation for the transfer/posting of officials in the prosecution and investigation wing. The court also asked to be provided with a record of the past six weeks regarding the transfer/posting of officials.
The court also asked to be informed about the steps being taken to protect the record of criminal cases and directed for the record of high-profile cases to be checked and sealed. When Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf protested against this, the CJP said that the record of ongoing cases would not be sealed, only that of the prosecution.
During the hearing, the CJP observed that there should be "no interference in the prosecution process or the prosecution wing".
The CJP also said that FIA's former director Mohammad Rizwan, who was probing the money laundering charges against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his son Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shahbaz, was also transferred and later died of a heart attack.
"We are concerned over these developments," the CJP said. Justice Bandial also stated that according to news reports, "thousands" of people had benefitted after their names were removed from the no-fly list.
"We have been seeing such news reports for the past one month. This has an effect on the rule of law," the CJP said, adding that it was the court's responsibility to maintain peace and trust in society under the Constitution.
The CJP also stated that the suo motu was not meant to embarrass or hold anyone responsible. "It is meant to protect the criminal justice system and the rule of law," he observed.
The court wants the implementation of Article 10-A (right to fair trial), Article 4 (due process) and Article 25 (equality of citizens), he said, adding that notices were being issued to the parties concerned. He also expressed the hope that the federal government would cooperate in providing an explanation.
Justice Naqvi noted that the FIA prosecutor had filed a written application in the court stating that he was told to not appear in the money laundering case against PM Shehbaz and CM Hamza, while Justice Akhtar observed that the transfers and postings were "apparently targeted".
However, the AGP contended that the FIA would have a proper reason for making the changes. Justice Akhtar replied by saying the court was concerned which was why the chief justice took notice, and asked the AGP to cooperate.
At one point, CJP Bandial remarked that the court was only concerned with ensuring justice. "We want to maintain the dignity, honour and respect of the investigation process. We are not doing this for point-scoring. We will not be affected by any kind of criticism.
"We are answerable to Allah and the Constitution. We do not need praise and are not afraid of criticism. We only want the provision of justice which is done at the conclusion of a case," the CJP remarked.
The chief justice observed that the social media cells of political parties were very strong and the court had been observing developments while remaining a silent spectator.
"The accused in the cases have not been convicted yet. No one should tamper with the justice system," he warned without taking any names, adding that the apex court was reviewing judicial proceedings.
Special courts in Karachi and Lahore lack judges while three accountability courts in Islamabad were also empty, Justice Bandial observed.
Subsequently, the court stopped the FIA and the NAB from withdrawing cases till further orders. The hearing was later adjourned till May 27.
Suo motu notice
A day earlier, the CJP had taken suo motu notice on the recommendations of a SC judge on perceived interference in the independence of the prosecution branch in the performance of its power and duties for investigation and prosecution of pending criminal matters involving persons in authority in government.
According to a press release issued by the apex court, such interference could influence the prosecution of cases, result in tampering or disappearing of evidence in courts or in possession of prosecuting agencies and lead to transfers and postings of officers on key posts.
The press release said that such actions, along with "media reports" about changes in accountability laws, were likely to "undermine" the functioning of the country's criminal justice system.
"That [is tantamount] to violation of fundamental rights affecting the society as a whole and eroding [of] the confidence of the people in the rule of law and constitutionalism in the country," it added.
The SC press release did not indicate which "pending criminal matters" it was referring to. However, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is currently pursuing a money laundering case against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shehbaz, whose indictment has been delayed since February.
The notice also comes amid allegations levelled by the PTI that soon after coming into power, the present coalition government allegedly started influencing different cases and transferring investigators or officers supervising cases, especially related to corruption allegations.
Read: Imran hails verdict, asks SC to hear cases against Sharifs
It is also pertinent to mention here that key figures from within the allied parties of the new government have called for either complete dissolution of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) or amendments to the corruption watchdog's laws.
On Tuesday, the cabinet consented to amending NAB's "draconian laws" to do away with political victimisation. The meeting also constituted a committee, which would be headed by the federal law minister, for this purpose.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1690453/sc-bars-transfers-new-appointments-in-high-profile-criminal-cases
The directives came as a five-judge larger bench took up the suo motu case on apprehensions that criminal justice might be undermined by people in positions of authority. The bench comprised Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar.
The court also issued notices to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general, the NAB chairman and the interior secretary. The court asked the parties concerned to give an explanation as to why there was "interference" in criminal cases, and stopped the NAB and FIA from withdrawing cases till further orders.
Notices were also issued to all the provincial prosecutor generals and advocate generals.
In addition, the FIA and NAB were asked to provide an explanation for the transfer/posting of officials in the prosecution and investigation wing. The court also asked to be provided with a record of the past six weeks regarding the transfer/posting of officials.
The court also asked to be informed about the steps being taken to protect the record of criminal cases and directed for the record of high-profile cases to be checked and sealed. When Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf protested against this, the CJP said that the record of ongoing cases would not be sealed, only that of the prosecution.
During the hearing, the CJP observed that there should be "no interference in the prosecution process or the prosecution wing".
The CJP also said that FIA's former director Mohammad Rizwan, who was probing the money laundering charges against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his son Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shahbaz, was also transferred and later died of a heart attack.
"We are concerned over these developments," the CJP said. Justice Bandial also stated that according to news reports, "thousands" of people had benefitted after their names were removed from the no-fly list.
"We have been seeing such news reports for the past one month. This has an effect on the rule of law," the CJP said, adding that it was the court's responsibility to maintain peace and trust in society under the Constitution.
The CJP also stated that the suo motu was not meant to embarrass or hold anyone responsible. "It is meant to protect the criminal justice system and the rule of law," he observed.
The court wants the implementation of Article 10-A (right to fair trial), Article 4 (due process) and Article 25 (equality of citizens), he said, adding that notices were being issued to the parties concerned. He also expressed the hope that the federal government would cooperate in providing an explanation.
Justice Naqvi noted that the FIA prosecutor had filed a written application in the court stating that he was told to not appear in the money laundering case against PM Shehbaz and CM Hamza, while Justice Akhtar observed that the transfers and postings were "apparently targeted".
However, the AGP contended that the FIA would have a proper reason for making the changes. Justice Akhtar replied by saying the court was concerned which was why the chief justice took notice, and asked the AGP to cooperate.
At one point, CJP Bandial remarked that the court was only concerned with ensuring justice. "We want to maintain the dignity, honour and respect of the investigation process. We are not doing this for point-scoring. We will not be affected by any kind of criticism.
"We are answerable to Allah and the Constitution. We do not need praise and are not afraid of criticism. We only want the provision of justice which is done at the conclusion of a case," the CJP remarked.
The chief justice observed that the social media cells of political parties were very strong and the court had been observing developments while remaining a silent spectator.
"The accused in the cases have not been convicted yet. No one should tamper with the justice system," he warned without taking any names, adding that the apex court was reviewing judicial proceedings.
Special courts in Karachi and Lahore lack judges while three accountability courts in Islamabad were also empty, Justice Bandial observed.
Subsequently, the court stopped the FIA and the NAB from withdrawing cases till further orders. The hearing was later adjourned till May 27.
Suo motu notice
A day earlier, the CJP had taken suo motu notice on the recommendations of a SC judge on perceived interference in the independence of the prosecution branch in the performance of its power and duties for investigation and prosecution of pending criminal matters involving persons in authority in government.
According to a press release issued by the apex court, such interference could influence the prosecution of cases, result in tampering or disappearing of evidence in courts or in possession of prosecuting agencies and lead to transfers and postings of officers on key posts.
The press release said that such actions, along with "media reports" about changes in accountability laws, were likely to "undermine" the functioning of the country's criminal justice system.
"That [is tantamount] to violation of fundamental rights affecting the society as a whole and eroding [of] the confidence of the people in the rule of law and constitutionalism in the country," it added.
The SC press release did not indicate which "pending criminal matters" it was referring to. However, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is currently pursuing a money laundering case against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shehbaz, whose indictment has been delayed since February.
The notice also comes amid allegations levelled by the PTI that soon after coming into power, the present coalition government allegedly started influencing different cases and transferring investigators or officers supervising cases, especially related to corruption allegations.
Read: Imran hails verdict, asks SC to hear cases against Sharifs
It is also pertinent to mention here that key figures from within the allied parties of the new government have called for either complete dissolution of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) or amendments to the corruption watchdog's laws.
On Tuesday, the cabinet consented to amending NAB's "draconian laws" to do away with political victimisation. The meeting also constituted a committee, which would be headed by the federal law minister, for this purpose.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1690453/sc-bars-transfers-new-appointments-in-high-profile-criminal-cases
Pakpak
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 9,231
Yup all these freebies so PTI doesn't go ahead with its long march. That's all this is to get him to change his mind
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Lamenting the judiciary for taking a suo muo notice over former prime minister Imran Khan’s statement during a rally, JUI-F head Maulana Fazlur Rehman has said “if the courts are willing to diminish their dignity and honour then they should not complain to them (coalition government) later.”
Addressing a public meeting in Karachi on Thursday, the PDM chief asked the judiciary why any action was not taken against Imran when ex-FIA chief Bashir Memon made allegations against the then PM and when government officers were changed during the Panama Papers investigation.
“If a suo moto is to be taken under pressure of Imran’s political rallies then JUI-F workers are also present in the field,” Fazlur Rehman said, adding that if the judiciary wants to govern the country then they should step forward otherwise let the executive do their job.
He further questioned the judiciary that when the government changed the FIA officers as per the authority vested in it then why was a suo moto notice taken.
The PDM chief went on to say that it was good thing Imran came to power as his incompetence has been exposed.
Further on, Fazlur Rehman maintained that politics took an ugly form because of Imran Khan. “He [Imran Khan] proved to be incompetent in terms of performance and appeared mentally ill.”
Express Tribune
Addressing a public meeting in Karachi on Thursday, the PDM chief asked the judiciary why any action was not taken against Imran when ex-FIA chief Bashir Memon made allegations against the then PM and when government officers were changed during the Panama Papers investigation.
“If a suo moto is to be taken under pressure of Imran’s political rallies then JUI-F workers are also present in the field,” Fazlur Rehman said, adding that if the judiciary wants to govern the country then they should step forward otherwise let the executive do their job.
He further questioned the judiciary that when the government changed the FIA officers as per the authority vested in it then why was a suo moto notice taken.
The PDM chief went on to say that it was good thing Imran came to power as his incompetence has been exposed.
Further on, Fazlur Rehman maintained that politics took an ugly form because of Imran Khan. “He [Imran Khan] proved to be incompetent in terms of performance and appeared mentally ill.”
Express Tribune
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
The superior judiciary is facing a battle of perception of shaping politics as well as changing regimes in the country after its restoration through a mass movement in March 2009.
Instead of addressing the grievances of the oppressed classes in the country, the Supreme Court’s suo motu jurisdiction -- under Article 184 (3) -- is used to question the executive’s decisions and changing regimes.
One section of lawyers alleges that the apex court exercises its public interest litigation under Article 184 (3) in a few cases for “political engineering”.
However, leaders of political parties cannot be absolved of their negative role as well.
They tried to use the superior judiciary against each other. When the PPP was in power, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif requested the SC to open a probe into the Memogate scandal, in which then-president Asif Ali Zardari was allegedly involved.
The SC under then top judge Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was also involved in the election processes including the preparation of voter lists.
In February 2012, it suspended 28 lawmakers elected in by-polls after the 18th Amendment.
They remained suspended until the passage of the 20th Amendment. The SC also expedited the 2013 general elections by rejecting Pakistan Awami Tehreek chief Dr Tahirul Qadri’s petition against the ECP formation.
It is an open secret that the PPP’s reputation took some serious damage due to the Supreme Court proceedings, allowing the rival PML-N to capitalise on the vacuum. Former prime minister Imran Khan also accused ex-CJP of being involved in rigging in the 2013 elections.
Ex-premier Yousuf Raza Gilani of the PPP was convicted in a contempt case wherein the SC had directed him to write a letter to Swiss authorities regarding the reopening of cases against then-president Zardari.
In November 2016, ex-CJP Anwar Zaheer Jamali had fixed the PTI chief’s petition seeking disqualification of then PM Nawaz Sharif on account of Panamagate revelations.
On April 20, 2017, a majority judgment called for forming a powerful joint investigation team (JIT) to probe into the sources of the fund used by the Sharif family to purchase their assets.
The issue related to the employment of Nawaz in his son’s UAE-based company Capital FZE surfaced for the first time in JIT’s final report.
Senior lawyers believe that without the assistance of some powerful stakeholders, it was not possible for the JIT to bring the documents related to Capital FZE from the UAE.
In view of these documents, Nawaz was disqualified for life on July 28, 2017 and NAB was ordered to file four references against the Sharifs.
The court also ruled that an SC judge will monitor proceedings of accountability courts once NAB filed references.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan was the monitoring judge who supervised the trials of PML-N leaders. However, there is no detail as to what were the parameters for the supervision. Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris contended in a review petition that the supervision would affect a fair trial as the SC had itself become the complainant, prosecutor, and judge.
In November 2017, the Islamabad Accountability Court-I judge denied Nawaz’s application to club all three references against him for a joint trial. But in June next year, the SC allowed the accountability court an unrealistic four-week extension when it sought permission for the move.
The extension ended just two weeks before the election and when the judgment came out, Nawaz, his daughter Maryam and her husband Capt (retd) Safdar were convicted and put behind bars just before the polls.
A three-judge bench led by then CJP Saqib Nisar also declared Imran Khan as “Sadiq and Ameen”. However, the same bench disqualified PTI leader Jahangir Khan Tareen.
The SC under ex-CJP Nisar also declared the disqualification of lawmakers under Article 62 (1) (f) would be permanent.
Contrary to the Election Act 2017, the Supreme Court on June 5, 2018 restored almost all information omitted in the nomination forms by parliament. Likewise, election matters were fixed before specific benches of the superior courts. When the election process was continued, PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi was also convicted in the ephedrine case. Ex-CJP Nisar also took suo motu notice of alleged money laundering through fake accounts in Sindh.
PML-N lawyers contended that they were not given a level playing field in the 2018 general elections.
The SC’s role cannot be ruled out in the ouster of ex-PM Imran Khan through a vote of no-confidence.
Now, a debate has again started as to whether or not the SC would again play its role to remove the incumbent coalition government. CJP Bandial has already taken suo motu notice over the alleged political interference in the working of prosecution and investigation in graft cases against the highest officeholders, especially PM Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz.
Though the incumbent superior judiciary may have been the outcome of a mass movement, it has been unable to shake the perception that it is under the security establishment’s influence. Political parties have been victims of judicial overreach.
Perhaps it is time for judges to question whether their rulings served to strengthen democracy over the previous decades.
They also need to examine the track record of their success in protecting civil liberties and freedom of speech. A question to ponder is how to change the view that judicial proceedings are manipulated by the establishment in high-profile cases. The removal of elected premiers, at least, has not been appreciated.
It is high time that the judiciary should take steps to get its own house in order. The discretionary powers of the CJP should be regulated forthwith as well.
The exercise of public interest jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) should be used sparingly. It should not be used in those matters which advantage or disadvantage any political party. This jurisdiction should be used to give relief to those whose rights are being usurped by state institutions.
Justice Maqbool Baqar, who retired last month, said the exclusion of certain judges from hearing sensitive cases on account of their independent and impartial views has had an adverse effect on the impartiality of the judiciary.
“The practice has also tarnished the public’s perception about the independence of the judiciary,” he added.
“This practice also tends to affect the morale of judges who are consigned to less significant benches and fosters feelings of estrangement amongst their members.
Express Tribune
Instead of addressing the grievances of the oppressed classes in the country, the Supreme Court’s suo motu jurisdiction -- under Article 184 (3) -- is used to question the executive’s decisions and changing regimes.
One section of lawyers alleges that the apex court exercises its public interest litigation under Article 184 (3) in a few cases for “political engineering”.
However, leaders of political parties cannot be absolved of their negative role as well.
They tried to use the superior judiciary against each other. When the PPP was in power, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif requested the SC to open a probe into the Memogate scandal, in which then-president Asif Ali Zardari was allegedly involved.
The SC under then top judge Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was also involved in the election processes including the preparation of voter lists.
In February 2012, it suspended 28 lawmakers elected in by-polls after the 18th Amendment.
They remained suspended until the passage of the 20th Amendment. The SC also expedited the 2013 general elections by rejecting Pakistan Awami Tehreek chief Dr Tahirul Qadri’s petition against the ECP formation.
It is an open secret that the PPP’s reputation took some serious damage due to the Supreme Court proceedings, allowing the rival PML-N to capitalise on the vacuum. Former prime minister Imran Khan also accused ex-CJP of being involved in rigging in the 2013 elections.
Ex-premier Yousuf Raza Gilani of the PPP was convicted in a contempt case wherein the SC had directed him to write a letter to Swiss authorities regarding the reopening of cases against then-president Zardari.
In November 2016, ex-CJP Anwar Zaheer Jamali had fixed the PTI chief’s petition seeking disqualification of then PM Nawaz Sharif on account of Panamagate revelations.
On April 20, 2017, a majority judgment called for forming a powerful joint investigation team (JIT) to probe into the sources of the fund used by the Sharif family to purchase their assets.
The issue related to the employment of Nawaz in his son’s UAE-based company Capital FZE surfaced for the first time in JIT’s final report.
Senior lawyers believe that without the assistance of some powerful stakeholders, it was not possible for the JIT to bring the documents related to Capital FZE from the UAE.
In view of these documents, Nawaz was disqualified for life on July 28, 2017 and NAB was ordered to file four references against the Sharifs.
The court also ruled that an SC judge will monitor proceedings of accountability courts once NAB filed references.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan was the monitoring judge who supervised the trials of PML-N leaders. However, there is no detail as to what were the parameters for the supervision. Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris contended in a review petition that the supervision would affect a fair trial as the SC had itself become the complainant, prosecutor, and judge.
In November 2017, the Islamabad Accountability Court-I judge denied Nawaz’s application to club all three references against him for a joint trial. But in June next year, the SC allowed the accountability court an unrealistic four-week extension when it sought permission for the move.
The extension ended just two weeks before the election and when the judgment came out, Nawaz, his daughter Maryam and her husband Capt (retd) Safdar were convicted and put behind bars just before the polls.
A three-judge bench led by then CJP Saqib Nisar also declared Imran Khan as “Sadiq and Ameen”. However, the same bench disqualified PTI leader Jahangir Khan Tareen.
The SC under ex-CJP Nisar also declared the disqualification of lawmakers under Article 62 (1) (f) would be permanent.
Contrary to the Election Act 2017, the Supreme Court on June 5, 2018 restored almost all information omitted in the nomination forms by parliament. Likewise, election matters were fixed before specific benches of the superior courts. When the election process was continued, PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi was also convicted in the ephedrine case. Ex-CJP Nisar also took suo motu notice of alleged money laundering through fake accounts in Sindh.
PML-N lawyers contended that they were not given a level playing field in the 2018 general elections.
The SC’s role cannot be ruled out in the ouster of ex-PM Imran Khan through a vote of no-confidence.
Now, a debate has again started as to whether or not the SC would again play its role to remove the incumbent coalition government. CJP Bandial has already taken suo motu notice over the alleged political interference in the working of prosecution and investigation in graft cases against the highest officeholders, especially PM Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz.
Though the incumbent superior judiciary may have been the outcome of a mass movement, it has been unable to shake the perception that it is under the security establishment’s influence. Political parties have been victims of judicial overreach.
Perhaps it is time for judges to question whether their rulings served to strengthen democracy over the previous decades.
They also need to examine the track record of their success in protecting civil liberties and freedom of speech. A question to ponder is how to change the view that judicial proceedings are manipulated by the establishment in high-profile cases. The removal of elected premiers, at least, has not been appreciated.
It is high time that the judiciary should take steps to get its own house in order. The discretionary powers of the CJP should be regulated forthwith as well.
The exercise of public interest jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) should be used sparingly. It should not be used in those matters which advantage or disadvantage any political party. This jurisdiction should be used to give relief to those whose rights are being usurped by state institutions.
Justice Maqbool Baqar, who retired last month, said the exclusion of certain judges from hearing sensitive cases on account of their independent and impartial views has had an adverse effect on the impartiality of the judiciary.
“The practice has also tarnished the public’s perception about the independence of the judiciary,” he added.
“This practice also tends to affect the morale of judges who are consigned to less significant benches and fosters feelings of estrangement amongst their members.
Express Tribune
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has been named among the 100 Most Influential People of 2022 by Time magazine.
The top judge "is widely respected for his personal integrity, as he, the Columbia- and Cambridge-*educated jurist, bears the heavy mantle of not just delivering justice but also being seen to do so," seasoned lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan noted in the profile penned by him and placed in the leaders' category.
Ahsan detailed Judge Bandial's persona in the context of the political unrest and ouster of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman from power after a no-trust vote by parliament, and the role of the court led by the judge in overcoming the constitutional and political crisis.
Express Tribune
The top judge "is widely respected for his personal integrity, as he, the Columbia- and Cambridge-*educated jurist, bears the heavy mantle of not just delivering justice but also being seen to do so," seasoned lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan noted in the profile penned by him and placed in the leaders' category.
Ahsan detailed Judge Bandial's persona in the context of the political unrest and ouster of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman from power after a no-trust vote by parliament, and the role of the court led by the judge in overcoming the constitutional and political crisis.
Express Tribune
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah said on Monday that the political leadership should stop fighting and move towards solving the country's real issues.
The IHC CJ's comments came in light of the ongoing cases registered against journalists across the country.
Journalists Arshad Sharif, Moeed Pirzada, Sami Ibrahim, judicial assistant and president of the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association Saqib Bashir appeared before the court today.
Justice Minallah questioned "why every government that comes to power forgets the past". "The Baloch students were being baton-charged by the last government, and the current government isn't listening to them either," he said, questioning whether the state thought it had any responsibility towards its people.
There no one to raise voice for the missing persons, the IHC CJ further maintained.
The high court expressed displeasure towards the federal government after the home secretary did not submit his response regarding the matter.
CJ Minallah remarked that these problems will be resolved "if even half the lawmakers currently embroiled in the struggles for power put in efforts". He added that, "The state itself does not play any role to deal with the issues of violation of fundamental rights."
The court suggested the federal government devise a mechanism that facilitates filing complaints in one place by journalists facing any problem.
It later sought suggestions regarding a mechanism to deal with journalists' complaints and granted the IHCJA president's request for more time and adjourned the hearing till June 4.
Express Tribune
The IHC CJ's comments came in light of the ongoing cases registered against journalists across the country.
Journalists Arshad Sharif, Moeed Pirzada, Sami Ibrahim, judicial assistant and president of the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association Saqib Bashir appeared before the court today.
Justice Minallah questioned "why every government that comes to power forgets the past". "The Baloch students were being baton-charged by the last government, and the current government isn't listening to them either," he said, questioning whether the state thought it had any responsibility towards its people.
There no one to raise voice for the missing persons, the IHC CJ further maintained.
The high court expressed displeasure towards the federal government after the home secretary did not submit his response regarding the matter.
CJ Minallah remarked that these problems will be resolved "if even half the lawmakers currently embroiled in the struggles for power put in efforts". He added that, "The state itself does not play any role to deal with the issues of violation of fundamental rights."
The court suggested the federal government devise a mechanism that facilitates filing complaints in one place by journalists facing any problem.
It later sought suggestions regarding a mechanism to deal with journalists' complaints and granted the IHCJA president's request for more time and adjourned the hearing till June 4.
Express Tribune
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
Minullah is dramabaaz.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday said the Supreme Court would not let any institutions transgress their mandate while observing that the executive (federal government) needed to use its powers in light of the Constitution and law.
The chief justice is heading a five-member bench over alleged interference of the federal government in high-profile cases pertaining to the premier and other ministers.
The CJ had taken a suo motu notice and formed a five-strong bench to settle the issue, especially the recent amendments in the ECL rules by the Shehbaz-led cabinet.
During the hearing today, Justice Bandial said the current circumstances were “extraordinary” in nature as the political party that had held a majority in parliament has resigned en masse. He said Pakistan was facing an economic crisis as well.
Justice Bandial said the court would not let anyone take advantage of the current situation and added that “[even] one-sided parliament should legislate as per the legal requirements”.
“In order for the system to function we all need to work together,” Justice Bandial said, adding that the court would keep a “close watch” to stop transgressions by any institution. He added that the top court did not want to issue a ruling that would create hurdles for the government.
During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar asked if there was a legal reason behind the removal of the names from the ECL.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked why did the government act so fast to remove the names.
The additional attorney general said that the names of the cabinet members were on the ECL and added that similar practices had been prevalent in the past as well.
“Is this the reply of the government that since it has happened in the past, it will continue to happen in the present too,” quipped Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi.
CJ Bandial said influential persons benefitted from the amendments and added that if someone thought that the case against them was not strong, they should approach the courts. Justice Bandial, however, appreciated PM Shehbaz and his son Hamza appearing in person for bail. He, however, added that the court would peruse the bail order.
Justice Ahsan asked if the cabinet approved the changes to the ECL rules. The government’s lawyer responded that the issue was under consideration by the cabinet committee concerned with legislation.
The additional attorney-general said the attorney general of Pakistan office held a meeting with all stakeholders after the SC order regarding the ECL. During the meeting, the observations and questions made by the court were discussed.
“Where are the minutes of the meeting,” Justice Mazahar asked. The minutes will be available in a few days, the lawyer responded. He further said that SOPs regarding amendments in ECL rules have been forwarded to all departments.
He said the authorities would look at cases of individuals whose names were removed from the ECL and added that the rules would be made after consultations with the National Accountability Bureau and Federal Investigation Agency.
Justice Bandial asked how could someone, who will be the beneficiary in the case, engage in an amendment of the rules.
Subsequently, the top court directed that the people whose names were on the ECL would need to approach the interior ministry if they wanted to go abroad. The additional attorney assured that the court’s interim order would be complied with till legislation regarding the ECL rules is completed.
Justice Bandial said the SC wanted the supremacy of law and rules should not be compromised for the government members facing cases in courts.
Express Tribune
The chief justice is heading a five-member bench over alleged interference of the federal government in high-profile cases pertaining to the premier and other ministers.
The CJ had taken a suo motu notice and formed a five-strong bench to settle the issue, especially the recent amendments in the ECL rules by the Shehbaz-led cabinet.
During the hearing today, Justice Bandial said the current circumstances were “extraordinary” in nature as the political party that had held a majority in parliament has resigned en masse. He said Pakistan was facing an economic crisis as well.
Justice Bandial said the court would not let anyone take advantage of the current situation and added that “[even] one-sided parliament should legislate as per the legal requirements”.
“In order for the system to function we all need to work together,” Justice Bandial said, adding that the court would keep a “close watch” to stop transgressions by any institution. He added that the top court did not want to issue a ruling that would create hurdles for the government.
During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar asked if there was a legal reason behind the removal of the names from the ECL.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked why did the government act so fast to remove the names.
The additional attorney general said that the names of the cabinet members were on the ECL and added that similar practices had been prevalent in the past as well.
“Is this the reply of the government that since it has happened in the past, it will continue to happen in the present too,” quipped Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi.
CJ Bandial said influential persons benefitted from the amendments and added that if someone thought that the case against them was not strong, they should approach the courts. Justice Bandial, however, appreciated PM Shehbaz and his son Hamza appearing in person for bail. He, however, added that the court would peruse the bail order.
Justice Ahsan asked if the cabinet approved the changes to the ECL rules. The government’s lawyer responded that the issue was under consideration by the cabinet committee concerned with legislation.
The additional attorney-general said the attorney general of Pakistan office held a meeting with all stakeholders after the SC order regarding the ECL. During the meeting, the observations and questions made by the court were discussed.
“Where are the minutes of the meeting,” Justice Mazahar asked. The minutes will be available in a few days, the lawyer responded. He further said that SOPs regarding amendments in ECL rules have been forwarded to all departments.
He said the authorities would look at cases of individuals whose names were removed from the ECL and added that the rules would be made after consultations with the National Accountability Bureau and Federal Investigation Agency.
Justice Bandial asked how could someone, who will be the beneficiary in the case, engage in an amendment of the rules.
Subsequently, the top court directed that the people whose names were on the ECL would need to approach the interior ministry if they wanted to go abroad. The additional attorney assured that the court’s interim order would be complied with till legislation regarding the ECL rules is completed.
Justice Bandial said the SC wanted the supremacy of law and rules should not be compromised for the government members facing cases in courts.
Express Tribune
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Friday said that the state was involved in the practice of enforced disappearances as the court heard petitions regarding the recovery of missing persons.
During the hearing today, Chief Justice Athar Minallah asked the deputy attorney general why were people still “picked up”. “What steps has the federal government taken and who is responsible?” he asked.
In response, the deputy attorney general informed the court that the federal cabinet had constituted a committee on missing persons and would make recommendations on missing persons' cases.
CJ Minallah further questioned the government representative as to whether the government had issued affidavits to former chief executives, including former president General Pervez Musharraf.
The deputy attorney general stated that the affidavits were under the purview of the attorney general, “he is abroad and if given some time, will present arguments on this.”
The chief justice expressed his disappointment with the conduct of the state and remarked that relevant parties were not giving the issue apt significance. “Today, the federal government has proved that it is not serious about such a big issue,” he added.
The IHC ordered the government to investigate the cases of missing people, adding that it would be preferred if the chief executive was present.
“You are proving that disappearing people has been the policy of the state since the days of General Musharraf, someone is responsible for the period in which people go missing,” CJ Minallah remarked.
The court also stated that as the practice continues and the government fails to comply with the IHC, they are largely ineffective.
The court then directed the interior ministry to ensure implementation of the May 25 order and said that no further adjournment would be given in the case and the parties should prepare arguments.
The case was adjourned till July 3.
The high court earlier ordered a detailed report from the Commission for Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance on its performance and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to address the issue of missing persons.
IHC Chief Justice Minallah asked the commission to tell the court about how it was formed, what its terms of reference (TORs) were and how they were implemented.
Subsequently, the court directed the federal government to issue notices to former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and all his successive chief executives of the country including incumbent PM Shehbaz Sharif as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for subversion of the Constitution in context of the state policy on enforced disappearance.
CJ Minallah had also remarked that enforced disappearances were unacceptable in a country run under the Constitution and asked why not the chief executive of the country be held responsible for it.
Hearing a case about the recovery of journalist and blogger Mudassar Naro and other missing persons, the chief justice said that the cases of enforced disappearances attracted terrorism laws, and were tantamount to treason.
Express Tribune
During the hearing today, Chief Justice Athar Minallah asked the deputy attorney general why were people still “picked up”. “What steps has the federal government taken and who is responsible?” he asked.
In response, the deputy attorney general informed the court that the federal cabinet had constituted a committee on missing persons and would make recommendations on missing persons' cases.
CJ Minallah further questioned the government representative as to whether the government had issued affidavits to former chief executives, including former president General Pervez Musharraf.
The deputy attorney general stated that the affidavits were under the purview of the attorney general, “he is abroad and if given some time, will present arguments on this.”
The chief justice expressed his disappointment with the conduct of the state and remarked that relevant parties were not giving the issue apt significance. “Today, the federal government has proved that it is not serious about such a big issue,” he added.
The IHC ordered the government to investigate the cases of missing people, adding that it would be preferred if the chief executive was present.
“You are proving that disappearing people has been the policy of the state since the days of General Musharraf, someone is responsible for the period in which people go missing,” CJ Minallah remarked.
The court also stated that as the practice continues and the government fails to comply with the IHC, they are largely ineffective.
The court then directed the interior ministry to ensure implementation of the May 25 order and said that no further adjournment would be given in the case and the parties should prepare arguments.
The case was adjourned till July 3.
The high court earlier ordered a detailed report from the Commission for Inquiry on Enforced Disappearance on its performance and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to address the issue of missing persons.
IHC Chief Justice Minallah asked the commission to tell the court about how it was formed, what its terms of reference (TORs) were and how they were implemented.
Subsequently, the court directed the federal government to issue notices to former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and all his successive chief executives of the country including incumbent PM Shehbaz Sharif as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for subversion of the Constitution in context of the state policy on enforced disappearance.
CJ Minallah had also remarked that enforced disappearances were unacceptable in a country run under the Constitution and asked why not the chief executive of the country be held responsible for it.
Hearing a case about the recovery of journalist and blogger Mudassar Naro and other missing persons, the chief justice said that the cases of enforced disappearances attracted terrorism laws, and were tantamount to treason.
Express Tribune
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
This clown thinks that these Topi dramas will make him look honest. If he was genuine he wouldn't have taken notice when it happened, not 6 weeks after
silentkiller187
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Runs
- 5,483
Former interior minister and Awami Muslim League (AML) president Sheikh Rashid Ahmed on Sunday said the Supreme Court should take a suo motu notice of the economic and political crises deteriorating at an alarming speed.
In a tweet, the AML chief said a slew of ill-advised economic policies of the PML-N-led government which, he said, comprised of “opportunists”, presaged another hike in inflation, especially an increase in the electricity prices.
Citing the plummeting rupee and costly import of liquefied natural gas (LNG), Ahmed said the import bill of the country had increased by 100% in just one month while the foreign exchange reserves dipped, adding that the remittances have also slowed.
Ahmed's statement came as the IMF has already asked Pakistan to control its ballooning current account deficit, which is under pressure due to the surge in commodity prices including oil. The government has in recent weeks withdrawn subsidies on petroleum products several times, creating rippling effects far from petrol stations -- a tough decision it says it had to take due to the negotiations initiated with the global lender by the previous government of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Lacing in the "imported government", Sheikh Rashid in his statement alleged that the government was ingratiating itself with the US for a successful deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), seeking its intercession for the task.
“They are on the US’ feet for IMF agreement. The imported government is another name for opportunism,” he said in a tweet, adding the incumbent dispensation only concerned itself with the disposal of their corruption cases.
Lashing out at the PML-N supremo, Ahmed said Nawaz Sharif should now honour the party’s rallying cry of “vote ko izzat do” (respect the vote) and come back to Pakistan.
“May God have mercy on Pakistan now that Asif Zardari has taken the reins of the PPP.”
Referring to the recent chaotic budget sessions of the Punjab Assembly, the former interior minister said the provincial assembly held two sessions simultaneously while the election of 20 deviant members in Punjab will be decided by the government with a majority of one vote.
“The circumstances are worsening at an alarming pace. The Supreme Court should take a suo motu notice of the crisis,” he added.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2362439/sc-should-take-suo-motu-notice-of-deteriorating-crises-rashid
In a tweet, the AML chief said a slew of ill-advised economic policies of the PML-N-led government which, he said, comprised of “opportunists”, presaged another hike in inflation, especially an increase in the electricity prices.
Citing the plummeting rupee and costly import of liquefied natural gas (LNG), Ahmed said the import bill of the country had increased by 100% in just one month while the foreign exchange reserves dipped, adding that the remittances have also slowed.
Ahmed's statement came as the IMF has already asked Pakistan to control its ballooning current account deficit, which is under pressure due to the surge in commodity prices including oil. The government has in recent weeks withdrawn subsidies on petroleum products several times, creating rippling effects far from petrol stations -- a tough decision it says it had to take due to the negotiations initiated with the global lender by the previous government of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Lacing in the "imported government", Sheikh Rashid in his statement alleged that the government was ingratiating itself with the US for a successful deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), seeking its intercession for the task.
“They are on the US’ feet for IMF agreement. The imported government is another name for opportunism,” he said in a tweet, adding the incumbent dispensation only concerned itself with the disposal of their corruption cases.
Lashing out at the PML-N supremo, Ahmed said Nawaz Sharif should now honour the party’s rallying cry of “vote ko izzat do” (respect the vote) and come back to Pakistan.
“May God have mercy on Pakistan now that Asif Zardari has taken the reins of the PPP.”
Referring to the recent chaotic budget sessions of the Punjab Assembly, the former interior minister said the provincial assembly held two sessions simultaneously while the election of 20 deviant members in Punjab will be decided by the government with a majority of one vote.
“The circumstances are worsening at an alarming pace. The Supreme Court should take a suo motu notice of the crisis,” he added.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2362439/sc-should-take-suo-motu-notice-of-deteriorating-crises-rashid
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Being openly criticized now....
==
A meeting of the government and its coalition partners is underway at the Prime Minister House after the Supreme Court on Monday rejected the request to form a full court bench on petitions related to the recently held Punjab chief minister’s re-election — including a review of its interpretation of Article 63-A.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl chief Maulana Fazl Rehman, PPP Chairman and Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari are among the senior political leaders and government figures in attendance.
Leaders of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan, members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, Awami National Party, Balochistan Awami Party, Balochistan National Party and other government-allied parties are also present at the huddle, along with PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz and other senior PML-N figures.
The coalition meeting resolved to not back down from its demand for a full court and also decided upon its future strategy in light of the apex court’s decision.
The government leaders agreed to move forward with a joint plan of action.
Full bench would’ve exposed ‘contradiction in SC’s own verdicts’: Maryam
Meanwhile, Maryam made a series of critical tweets soon after the apex court’s verdict, saying the reason the request for a full bench was rejected was the fear of contradictions in the court’s own decision.
“When the decisions are not in accordance with the Constitution, law and justice, there is a danger from the full court. Because with the involvement of honest judges, the flaws of a decision come to the fore and people know that the decision is not based on the Constitution and the law, but personal preferences.”
Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal said the court’s ruling had laid the foundation of a “new political crisis” in the country. He questioned if the judiciary would accept responsibility for the economic effects arising from the crisis.
Coalition reiterates demand for full bench
Earlier in the day, the coalition government had reiterated its demand for the formation of a full bench to hear the case regarding the Punjab CM’s election.
On Friday, Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari decided not to count the PML-Q’s votes in the Punjab chief minister’s election, deeming them to be against party head Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s directions and thus handing PML-N’s Hamza Shehbaz the victory over PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi.
During the press talk, which came hours before the apex court resumed hearing Elahi’s petition against Mazari’s ruling, members of the coalition government came down hard on the judiciary and questioned its impartiality.
They also questioned the court’s decision to restrict the entry of all political leaders present during the press conference. According to an Islamabad police official, only the leaders of respondent parties were allowed to enter the court premises with the permission of the SC administration.
At the outset of the press conference, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz said that she had been advised not to hold the media talk as it would affect her appeal in the Panama Papers case that was being heard by the Islamabad High Court and was in its “final stages”.
“However, I said that the people’s representative has to think beyond themselves and think about the people.”
Commenting on recent court decisions, Maryam said that their impact stays for decades and intensifies over time.
“I can write an essay praising the judiciary but one wrong decision will dismiss the entire [argument],” she said. On the other hand, a decision based on justice can withstand criticism, she said.
She alleged that petitions were being filed with the court and were not being fixed or were facing delays.
Our justice system is such that when a petition is filed, the people already know what bench will be constituted and the decision that will be given, she said.
Maryam gave several examples of the PML-N’s legal woes, claiming that the party’s leaders were being discriminated against.
She also gave the example of Hamza, saying: “Have you ever heard of a trustee chief minister?”
She said that since Hamza was elected chief minister of Punjab, he was not being allowed to work. “He goes from parliament to court, and back and forth. What justice is this?”
The PML-N vice president pointed out that there were many respected judges appointed to the apex court and questioned why they were not involved in hearing cases.
“One or two judges, who have always been anti-PML-N and anti-government, they are repeatedly included in the bench,” she said, adding that “bench-fixing is a crime just like match-fixing”.
It should be noted that the case on the legality of the Punjab deputy speaker’s ruling is being heard by a three-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar— three of the five judges who deemed that the then National Assembly deputy speaker Qasim Suri’s decision to dismiss the vote of no-confidence against PTI chief Imran Khan in April was contrary to the Constitution, paving the way for his ouster as prime minister.
Justices Bandial, Ahsan and Akhtar were also instrumental in the split decision that disallowed the votes of defecting lawmakers from being counted in the Punjab chief minister election, the verdict that set the stage for the re-election that took place last week.
During the press conference, Maryam also alleged that court decisions were favouring the PTI even though they were mocking the judicial system.
She questioned the state of judicial system and where the country was headed if decisions were given in favour of those who “abuse and bully institutions”.
3 people can’t be allowed to decide country’s fate: Bilawal
Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari asserted that the country’s democratic parties had only one demand: the formation of a full court bench.
“It cannot happen that only three people decide this country’s fate. That only they decide whether this country is run through a democratic system, an elected system or a selected system.”
Bilawal said that all the parties in the coalition government wanted a democratic system.
He went on to say that “some powers” were unable to digest that Pakistan was moving towards democracy and the people were making their own decisions.
He said that the PTI chief had trampled on the province’s rights during his time in government which had proven to be disastrous for the country and the economy.
Bilawal said that as a result of the government’s democratic struggles, the country’s institutions were compelled to change their “controversial, unconstitutional and undemocratic role”.
“And it has been three months and some powers, people, political parties and conspirators are unable to tolerate […] a campaign is being run in the country to keep Imran Khan at the forefront.”
He alleged that this campaign was a conspiracy against the country’s economic progress and democratic journey.
“We did not let any conspiracy succeed in the past and we will not let it happen now. We want institutions to remain uncontroversial.”
The foreign minister said that everyone will accept the verdict when all the judges listen to the case.
“If only three judges give a decision, then we will not be able to control the political situation that will develop in this country.”
He said that the Constitution could not be altered due to the pressure asserted by the PTI chief.
“We all want full court bench. Whatever you decide then will be according to the law and Constitution and we will trust it.”
Maulana endorses Maryam’s view
During the media talk, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman endorsed Maryam’s view saying that fingers were being pointed at the judiciary.
He said that the government wanted to strengthen the judiciary so that their decisions spoke for themselves. “They shouldn’t have any conflict or give the impression of being biased.”
He said that a government given the mandate by the people was not being allowed to function. He went on to say that when a government was not formed as per the will of the country’s institutions, a new setup was imposed through rigging.
“Institutions meddle in political affairs to protect the state but do they ever think that the state is weakened due to their interference?” he asked.
“You are sitting behind a wall. You may decide whatever you want […] and make politicians the culprit in the eyes of the public and defame them. But hold yourself accountable.”
The Maulana said that the government did not expect any justice from the current bench and reiterated the government’s demand for a full bench.
He went on to say that the government supported what Maryam said earlier, saying that this was their “united stance”.
“Don’t take this nation to a point where people rebel against institutions,” he said.
He said that the people’s confidence in the country’s institutions needed to be restored but the latter should also assess their role and hold themselves accountable.
“We want to make country’s future brighter but for that, stability for the government is important […] We are united on the fact that we have to set the economy right but let us do it.”
The JUI-F said that it was very easy to “create difficulties”.
“If you expect us to not create any difficulties for you, then it is also your obligation to not create difficulties for us […] if there’s support for parliament, institutions and the government, the country will stabilise.”
‘No one will be satisfied with 3-member bench’s decision’
Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) leader Khalid Magsi also endorsed the views expressed by the others and warned that the country was heading towards “civil war”.
“Institutions should wake up and ego issues should be resolved. If everyone does their own job, things will improve,” he stated, adding that otherwise, no improvement would be seen even in the next 70 years.
Highlighting that parties in the ruling coalition had a significant number of supporters, he reiterated the demand for a full court. “If a three-member bench decides the matter, no one will be satisfied […] we will go back to square one.”
There is nothing wrong if all the judges sit together to serve this nation, he added. Magsi also suggested that a grand jirga be set up to define the country’s future direction.
PML-Q leader Tariq Bashir Cheema also reiterated the demand for a full court bench, adding that a decision should be taken “for once and all times to come”.
The PML-Q leader expressed the hope that the court would accept the demand for a the formation of a full court bench so that justice could be ensured.
Awami National Party’s (ANP) Aimal Wali Khan, in an apparent criticism of the SC’s Saturday order on Mazari’s ruling, said: “If decisions have to be made in such a manner, there’s no need for a party president. The parliamentary leader can have all the power”.
He stressed that the party president had the authority to make all “major decisions”.
“It is a simple fact that the parliamentary leader is answerable to the party president. The former has to follow the latter’s orders.”
The ANP leader stressed that all institutions should work within their ambit as defined in the Constitution, adding that “people and democracy will suffer in case of a conflict between the government, parliament and SC”.
Express Tribune
==
A meeting of the government and its coalition partners is underway at the Prime Minister House after the Supreme Court on Monday rejected the request to form a full court bench on petitions related to the recently held Punjab chief minister’s re-election — including a review of its interpretation of Article 63-A.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl chief Maulana Fazl Rehman, PPP Chairman and Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari are among the senior political leaders and government figures in attendance.
Leaders of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan, members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, Awami National Party, Balochistan Awami Party, Balochistan National Party and other government-allied parties are also present at the huddle, along with PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz and other senior PML-N figures.
The coalition meeting resolved to not back down from its demand for a full court and also decided upon its future strategy in light of the apex court’s decision.
The government leaders agreed to move forward with a joint plan of action.
Full bench would’ve exposed ‘contradiction in SC’s own verdicts’: Maryam
Meanwhile, Maryam made a series of critical tweets soon after the apex court’s verdict, saying the reason the request for a full bench was rejected was the fear of contradictions in the court’s own decision.
“When the decisions are not in accordance with the Constitution, law and justice, there is a danger from the full court. Because with the involvement of honest judges, the flaws of a decision come to the fore and people know that the decision is not based on the Constitution and the law, but personal preferences.”
Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal said the court’s ruling had laid the foundation of a “new political crisis” in the country. He questioned if the judiciary would accept responsibility for the economic effects arising from the crisis.
Coalition reiterates demand for full bench
Earlier in the day, the coalition government had reiterated its demand for the formation of a full bench to hear the case regarding the Punjab CM’s election.
On Friday, Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari decided not to count the PML-Q’s votes in the Punjab chief minister’s election, deeming them to be against party head Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s directions and thus handing PML-N’s Hamza Shehbaz the victory over PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi.
During the press talk, which came hours before the apex court resumed hearing Elahi’s petition against Mazari’s ruling, members of the coalition government came down hard on the judiciary and questioned its impartiality.
They also questioned the court’s decision to restrict the entry of all political leaders present during the press conference. According to an Islamabad police official, only the leaders of respondent parties were allowed to enter the court premises with the permission of the SC administration.
At the outset of the press conference, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz said that she had been advised not to hold the media talk as it would affect her appeal in the Panama Papers case that was being heard by the Islamabad High Court and was in its “final stages”.
“However, I said that the people’s representative has to think beyond themselves and think about the people.”
Commenting on recent court decisions, Maryam said that their impact stays for decades and intensifies over time.
“I can write an essay praising the judiciary but one wrong decision will dismiss the entire [argument],” she said. On the other hand, a decision based on justice can withstand criticism, she said.
She alleged that petitions were being filed with the court and were not being fixed or were facing delays.
Our justice system is such that when a petition is filed, the people already know what bench will be constituted and the decision that will be given, she said.
Maryam gave several examples of the PML-N’s legal woes, claiming that the party’s leaders were being discriminated against.
She also gave the example of Hamza, saying: “Have you ever heard of a trustee chief minister?”
She said that since Hamza was elected chief minister of Punjab, he was not being allowed to work. “He goes from parliament to court, and back and forth. What justice is this?”
The PML-N vice president pointed out that there were many respected judges appointed to the apex court and questioned why they were not involved in hearing cases.
“One or two judges, who have always been anti-PML-N and anti-government, they are repeatedly included in the bench,” she said, adding that “bench-fixing is a crime just like match-fixing”.
It should be noted that the case on the legality of the Punjab deputy speaker’s ruling is being heard by a three-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar— three of the five judges who deemed that the then National Assembly deputy speaker Qasim Suri’s decision to dismiss the vote of no-confidence against PTI chief Imran Khan in April was contrary to the Constitution, paving the way for his ouster as prime minister.
Justices Bandial, Ahsan and Akhtar were also instrumental in the split decision that disallowed the votes of defecting lawmakers from being counted in the Punjab chief minister election, the verdict that set the stage for the re-election that took place last week.
During the press conference, Maryam also alleged that court decisions were favouring the PTI even though they were mocking the judicial system.
She questioned the state of judicial system and where the country was headed if decisions were given in favour of those who “abuse and bully institutions”.
3 people can’t be allowed to decide country’s fate: Bilawal
Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari asserted that the country’s democratic parties had only one demand: the formation of a full court bench.
“It cannot happen that only three people decide this country’s fate. That only they decide whether this country is run through a democratic system, an elected system or a selected system.”
Bilawal said that all the parties in the coalition government wanted a democratic system.
He went on to say that “some powers” were unable to digest that Pakistan was moving towards democracy and the people were making their own decisions.
He said that the PTI chief had trampled on the province’s rights during his time in government which had proven to be disastrous for the country and the economy.
Bilawal said that as a result of the government’s democratic struggles, the country’s institutions were compelled to change their “controversial, unconstitutional and undemocratic role”.
“And it has been three months and some powers, people, political parties and conspirators are unable to tolerate […] a campaign is being run in the country to keep Imran Khan at the forefront.”
He alleged that this campaign was a conspiracy against the country’s economic progress and democratic journey.
“We did not let any conspiracy succeed in the past and we will not let it happen now. We want institutions to remain uncontroversial.”
The foreign minister said that everyone will accept the verdict when all the judges listen to the case.
“If only three judges give a decision, then we will not be able to control the political situation that will develop in this country.”
He said that the Constitution could not be altered due to the pressure asserted by the PTI chief.
“We all want full court bench. Whatever you decide then will be according to the law and Constitution and we will trust it.”
Maulana endorses Maryam’s view
During the media talk, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman endorsed Maryam’s view saying that fingers were being pointed at the judiciary.
He said that the government wanted to strengthen the judiciary so that their decisions spoke for themselves. “They shouldn’t have any conflict or give the impression of being biased.”
He said that a government given the mandate by the people was not being allowed to function. He went on to say that when a government was not formed as per the will of the country’s institutions, a new setup was imposed through rigging.
“Institutions meddle in political affairs to protect the state but do they ever think that the state is weakened due to their interference?” he asked.
“You are sitting behind a wall. You may decide whatever you want […] and make politicians the culprit in the eyes of the public and defame them. But hold yourself accountable.”
The Maulana said that the government did not expect any justice from the current bench and reiterated the government’s demand for a full bench.
He went on to say that the government supported what Maryam said earlier, saying that this was their “united stance”.
“Don’t take this nation to a point where people rebel against institutions,” he said.
He said that the people’s confidence in the country’s institutions needed to be restored but the latter should also assess their role and hold themselves accountable.
“We want to make country’s future brighter but for that, stability for the government is important […] We are united on the fact that we have to set the economy right but let us do it.”
The JUI-F said that it was very easy to “create difficulties”.
“If you expect us to not create any difficulties for you, then it is also your obligation to not create difficulties for us […] if there’s support for parliament, institutions and the government, the country will stabilise.”
‘No one will be satisfied with 3-member bench’s decision’
Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) leader Khalid Magsi also endorsed the views expressed by the others and warned that the country was heading towards “civil war”.
“Institutions should wake up and ego issues should be resolved. If everyone does their own job, things will improve,” he stated, adding that otherwise, no improvement would be seen even in the next 70 years.
Highlighting that parties in the ruling coalition had a significant number of supporters, he reiterated the demand for a full court. “If a three-member bench decides the matter, no one will be satisfied […] we will go back to square one.”
There is nothing wrong if all the judges sit together to serve this nation, he added. Magsi also suggested that a grand jirga be set up to define the country’s future direction.
PML-Q leader Tariq Bashir Cheema also reiterated the demand for a full court bench, adding that a decision should be taken “for once and all times to come”.
The PML-Q leader expressed the hope that the court would accept the demand for a the formation of a full court bench so that justice could be ensured.
Awami National Party’s (ANP) Aimal Wali Khan, in an apparent criticism of the SC’s Saturday order on Mazari’s ruling, said: “If decisions have to be made in such a manner, there’s no need for a party president. The parliamentary leader can have all the power”.
He stressed that the party president had the authority to make all “major decisions”.
“It is a simple fact that the parliamentary leader is answerable to the party president. The former has to follow the latter’s orders.”
The ANP leader stressed that all institutions should work within their ambit as defined in the Constitution, adding that “people and democracy will suffer in case of a conflict between the government, parliament and SC”.
Express Tribune
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
Our Judiciary are scared off the mafia. They came under pressure to open the courts at midnight, they got scared off from asking for elections by Bajwa, and they refused to open the American threats letter. Here they have been abused by the mafia and no action
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Hearing former premier Imran Khan's petition against the recent amendments made to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said on Friday that those sitting in parliament must not make self-serving legislation.
The CJP stated that the country was not through some ordinary times, but an "exceptional time".
During today's hearing, the former premier’s lawyer Khwaja Harris sought more time to submit written arguments. He said he could not submit them on time owing to him having contracted Covid-19.
The CJP clarified during the hearing that the court will only be focused on examining the point of amendments against the fundamental rights and will refrain from interfering in political matters.
It was further added that if the amendments are deriding the process of accountability, it will be a violation of fundamental rights.
The CJP added that most of the amendments have provided relief to the accused, adding that the evidence presented by the plea bargainer has been made inadmissible. He said there was no prohibition against custody in the criminal justice system, but that the matter of arrest varied on the nature of the crime committed.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, arguing the federal government's side, stated that the accused are acquitted but there honour is not restored even then. He further argued that the higher judiciary often does not uphold NAB's punishments.
The CJP said in his remarks that the country is currently undergoing an extraordinary situation, with 150 members of the previous ruling party boycotting the assembly.
“The PTI was told to play a role in the National Assembly, half of their members are instead staging a boycott,” said the chief justice, adding that the members in the assembly are legislating for their personal benefits.
He furthered that the court does not want to interfere with the process of legislation, only took suo motu action over intrusion in investigation. He added that the court was only seeking record of high-profile cases to see whether the cases were being heard or not.
“The court will support all institutions that are complying with the Constitution. The court is gaining no pleasure from hearing cases under exceptional circumstances,” he said.
Further arguing the government's case, Khan cited the example of the US Supreme Court, saying it always stands with the elected government. To this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah responded that perhaps the US' Supreme Court's example does not fit here.
Read more Senate okays amendments to NAB law
Moreover, the CJP said that the supreme judiciary has been critical of the NAB law in its decisions, adding that nowhere in the world is a 90-day remand permitted.
“There is no remand of more than 14 days in criminal cases anywhere. The conviction rate in Japan is 99 percent,” he said.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till September 1.
The CJP stated that the country was not through some ordinary times, but an "exceptional time".
During today's hearing, the former premier’s lawyer Khwaja Harris sought more time to submit written arguments. He said he could not submit them on time owing to him having contracted Covid-19.
The CJP clarified during the hearing that the court will only be focused on examining the point of amendments against the fundamental rights and will refrain from interfering in political matters.
It was further added that if the amendments are deriding the process of accountability, it will be a violation of fundamental rights.
The CJP added that most of the amendments have provided relief to the accused, adding that the evidence presented by the plea bargainer has been made inadmissible. He said there was no prohibition against custody in the criminal justice system, but that the matter of arrest varied on the nature of the crime committed.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, arguing the federal government's side, stated that the accused are acquitted but there honour is not restored even then. He further argued that the higher judiciary often does not uphold NAB's punishments.
The CJP said in his remarks that the country is currently undergoing an extraordinary situation, with 150 members of the previous ruling party boycotting the assembly.
“The PTI was told to play a role in the National Assembly, half of their members are instead staging a boycott,” said the chief justice, adding that the members in the assembly are legislating for their personal benefits.
He furthered that the court does not want to interfere with the process of legislation, only took suo motu action over intrusion in investigation. He added that the court was only seeking record of high-profile cases to see whether the cases were being heard or not.
“The court will support all institutions that are complying with the Constitution. The court is gaining no pleasure from hearing cases under exceptional circumstances,” he said.
Further arguing the government's case, Khan cited the example of the US Supreme Court, saying it always stands with the elected government. To this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah responded that perhaps the US' Supreme Court's example does not fit here.
Read more Senate okays amendments to NAB law
Moreover, the CJP said that the supreme judiciary has been critical of the NAB law in its decisions, adding that nowhere in the world is a 90-day remand permitted.
“There is no remand of more than 14 days in criminal cases anywhere. The conviction rate in Japan is 99 percent,” he said.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till September 1.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Once again subjecting the judiciary to criticism, PTI Senior Vice President Fawad Chaudhry on Monday said that judges commenting on every subject was "inappropriate".
Fawad Chaudhry’s remarks came after Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah censured Imran Khan over his anti-military statement.
Earlier in the day, expressing his disappointment over PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s Faisalabad speech, in which he accused the coalition government of delaying elections to appoint the army chief of its choice, Justice Minallah remarked that everything has been put at stake for the sake of “Game of Thrones”.
“You want that you are allowed to speak whatever you want and the regulator should not regulate you,” remarked the CJ.
Irked by Imran Khan’s remarks about the army, the IHC chief justice said that you [Imran Khan] should not expect relief from the courts as it is the prerogative of the court.
Addressing a press conference, Chaudhry clarified that Khan had talked about merit-based appointment of army chief.
“This is a political matter, not a judicial one. It is inappropriate for judges to comment on every subject,” the PTI leader told the judges.
In view of the memogate scandal, Khan dubbed Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari “security risk and don”, the PTI leader said, adding that hence, it is not appropriate to link his statement with the military and its leadership.
“Each general and Pakistani citizen is a patriot,” he added.
TheNews
Fawad Chaudhry’s remarks came after Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah censured Imran Khan over his anti-military statement.
Earlier in the day, expressing his disappointment over PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s Faisalabad speech, in which he accused the coalition government of delaying elections to appoint the army chief of its choice, Justice Minallah remarked that everything has been put at stake for the sake of “Game of Thrones”.
“You want that you are allowed to speak whatever you want and the regulator should not regulate you,” remarked the CJ.
Irked by Imran Khan’s remarks about the army, the IHC chief justice said that you [Imran Khan] should not expect relief from the courts as it is the prerogative of the court.
Addressing a press conference, Chaudhry clarified that Khan had talked about merit-based appointment of army chief.
“This is a political matter, not a judicial one. It is inappropriate for judges to comment on every subject,” the PTI leader told the judges.
In view of the memogate scandal, Khan dubbed Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari “security risk and don”, the PTI leader said, adding that hence, it is not appropriate to link his statement with the military and its leadership.
“Each general and Pakistani citizen is a patriot,” he added.
TheNews
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
Govt given two months to find missing persons
PM assures court he will leave no stone unturned to solve matter
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court on Friday gave the government two months to take measures to recover missing persons.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif assured the court to solve the issue of missing persons seriously.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the case of missing journalist and blogger Mudassar Naro and other missing persons case.
The prime minister, interior and law ministers as well as attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) appeared in the court.
Justice Minallah remarked that he could not see the State fulfilling its responsibility.
Referring to former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, he added that a former chief executive, who ruled the country for nine years, proudly admitted in his book to selling citizens abroad.
The judge noted that this suggested that forced disappearances of citizens might have been State policy.
The IHC CJ observed that there could not be a state within a state and enforced disappearances were a violation of the Constitution.
The prime minister replied that he would leave no stone unturned to solve the cases of missing persons. He added that a missing person’s child had asked him to reunite him with his father. “This sentence was very disturbing for me. I will not waste any opportunity to fulfill my responsibility,” he maintained.
PM Shehbaz further told the court that a missing persons committee had held six meetings.
“I will monitor each meeting and submit a report to the court. The report will not be a story, but based on facts,” he added.
The judge noted that the findings of the missing persons commission were very painful. “It is the responsibility of the State to solve their [missing persons] problems,” he noted.
The IHC CJ observed that detention centres had been set up from where people have been rescued but no action had been taken. “There should not be a perception that law enforcement agencies pick up citizens. This perception affects our national security,” he remarked.
Justice Minallah further noted that the political leadership had to solve this problem as enforced disappearances were the worst form of torture.
About the judge’s mention of the book, PM Shehbaz said the one who started picking up people was a dictator – referring to Musharraf.
“My brother and I were also victims of that dictator's policies,” he added.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told the court that this was a 21-year-old issue, which could not be fixed in 10 days. He added that a permanent solution was possible only through dialogue.
PPP’s Farhatullah Babar told the judge that parliament had done its job in December 2015 and it believed that intelligence agencies were behind the disappearances.
The IHC CJ inquired the intelligence agencies were subject to whom. “Placing the responsibility on others has only made it worse. Everyone should play their role according to the Constitution,” he added.
On the occasion, human rights defender Amina Masood Janjua said the court had given a good judgment in the case of Mahira Sajid, the wife of missing information technology expert Sajid Mehmood.
However, she added that the then government had went to appeal.
“If the government withdraws those appeals, there can be improvement,” she maintained.
The IHC CJ replied that the court would decide the matter as per the Constitution.
The judge then allowed the prime minister to leave.
After his departure, the AGP argued that the court had imposed the responsibility of finding the missing persons on the prime minister, but it was actually them who would work to make this possible.
He added that the court should give them a chance and it would not be disappointed.
The law minister reiterated that the only solution to the problem was dialogue.
On the plea of the law minister, the court adjourned the hearing till November 14, giving the government two months to recover the missing persons.
Express Tribune
PM assures court he will leave no stone unturned to solve matter
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court on Friday gave the government two months to take measures to recover missing persons.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif assured the court to solve the issue of missing persons seriously.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the case of missing journalist and blogger Mudassar Naro and other missing persons case.
The prime minister, interior and law ministers as well as attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) appeared in the court.
Justice Minallah remarked that he could not see the State fulfilling its responsibility.
Referring to former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, he added that a former chief executive, who ruled the country for nine years, proudly admitted in his book to selling citizens abroad.
The judge noted that this suggested that forced disappearances of citizens might have been State policy.
The IHC CJ observed that there could not be a state within a state and enforced disappearances were a violation of the Constitution.
The prime minister replied that he would leave no stone unturned to solve the cases of missing persons. He added that a missing person’s child had asked him to reunite him with his father. “This sentence was very disturbing for me. I will not waste any opportunity to fulfill my responsibility,” he maintained.
PM Shehbaz further told the court that a missing persons committee had held six meetings.
“I will monitor each meeting and submit a report to the court. The report will not be a story, but based on facts,” he added.
The judge noted that the findings of the missing persons commission were very painful. “It is the responsibility of the State to solve their [missing persons] problems,” he noted.
The IHC CJ observed that detention centres had been set up from where people have been rescued but no action had been taken. “There should not be a perception that law enforcement agencies pick up citizens. This perception affects our national security,” he remarked.
Justice Minallah further noted that the political leadership had to solve this problem as enforced disappearances were the worst form of torture.
About the judge’s mention of the book, PM Shehbaz said the one who started picking up people was a dictator – referring to Musharraf.
“My brother and I were also victims of that dictator's policies,” he added.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told the court that this was a 21-year-old issue, which could not be fixed in 10 days. He added that a permanent solution was possible only through dialogue.
PPP’s Farhatullah Babar told the judge that parliament had done its job in December 2015 and it believed that intelligence agencies were behind the disappearances.
The IHC CJ inquired the intelligence agencies were subject to whom. “Placing the responsibility on others has only made it worse. Everyone should play their role according to the Constitution,” he added.
On the occasion, human rights defender Amina Masood Janjua said the court had given a good judgment in the case of Mahira Sajid, the wife of missing information technology expert Sajid Mehmood.
However, she added that the then government had went to appeal.
“If the government withdraws those appeals, there can be improvement,” she maintained.
The IHC CJ replied that the court would decide the matter as per the Constitution.
The judge then allowed the prime minister to leave.
After his departure, the AGP argued that the court had imposed the responsibility of finding the missing persons on the prime minister, but it was actually them who would work to make this possible.
He added that the court should give them a chance and it would not be disappointed.
The law minister reiterated that the only solution to the problem was dialogue.
On the plea of the law minister, the court adjourned the hearing till November 14, giving the government two months to recover the missing persons.
Express Tribune
Vatta
Debutant
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2022
- Runs
- 125
Is Mr Bandial still alive?
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
Just another drama queen taking his orders from you know who
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Pakistan's legal system remains a joke - until we have proper judiciary who listen to their conscience - this will not fix
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said on Monday the refusal of the government representatives in the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to endorse elevation of his five nominees to the Supreme Court was linked to a court ruling regarding the Punjab chief minister’s election.
Advertisement
Addressing the opening ceremony of the new judicial year, 2022-23, the chief justice said that the court was committed to defending the Constitution in all its aspects and it would not hesitate to act if the Constitution or the constitutional institutions were undermined.
The chief justice pointed out that the political events taking place in the country since March had been accompanied by an avalanche of political cases, involving complex questions of constitutional law.
“One such case where the Court intervened was the ruling issued by the then Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly on 22.07.2022,” Chief Justice Bandial said. “After a three day hearing the Court set aside the ruling of the Deputy Speaker and the result of the election on 26.07.2022.”
Continuing, he said that the decision prompted a sharp reaction from political quarters, who were disappointed by the judgment. He added that the displeasure of the federal government with the decision became evident two days later during a meeting of the JCP.
The commission, he said, had been convened to consider the names of five nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court. “These nominees were supported by four of the six Judicial Members of the Commission,” he added.
However, he continued, “the representatives of the Federal Government in the Commission either deferred or chose not to support the candidates proposed by the Chairman”, adding: “As a result, the meeting had to be adjourned.”
“I ponder, does such a reaction by the federal government to an adverse decision of the court reflect any respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary? I simply leave the matter there,” the chief justice said.
Chief Justice Bandial also expressed surprise over the appearance of former Supreme Court Bar Association presidents regarding the constitution of the full court to decide the petition against the Punjab Assembly deputy speaker’s ruling.
“Nevertheless, it did surprise the court that during the hearing of the case the current and several past office-bearers of the bar approached the bench with a request for constituting a full court on the urging of the respondent leader of the political party that is also the principal member of the coalition in the federal government,” he said.
“No legal ground for doing so was given. The request was unexpected because the bar was pleading a partisan political cause without even being a party to the case,” he further said.
The chief justice told the ceremony that the apex court was committed to defending the Constitution in all its aspects – its commands and directions to the state and the people, the enforcement of fundamental rights and for the lawful functioning of all the institutions.
“The court will not hesitate to act if the constitution and/or the constitutional institutions are undermined, violated or attacked. The court is aware that the country is presently faced with serious economic and political challenges,” the chief justice said.
However, Chief Justice Bandial pointed out that the situation had become worse with the recent floods, which had displaced nearly 33 million people and engulfed almost one-third of the country under water.
“To help with the flood relief efforts, apart from making private contributions, the judges of this court have also voluntarily contributed an additional amount equivalent to their three days salary while the Supreme Court staff has donated their two days salary,” he said.
“However, despite generous donations from all quarters of the country, the incumbent government still faces a formidable task and the unenviable obligation to steer the country towards rehabilitation and recovery,” he added.
“In such conditions, the court urges all political parties, their leaders, all decision makers and privileged members of society to put aside their differences and grievances and to act in unity for the public interest and the national good.”
Chief Justice Bandial emphasised that the time had come to forget personal agendas and to work collectively for the nation-building. He assured that the court would continue to protect the Constitution and the fundamental rights assured to the people of Pakistan.
In this regard, the chief justice said, a Conference titled ‘75 Years of Pakistan’ is being held by the Law and Justice Commission later this month to examine the role to be played by the judiciary in shaping the future trajectory of Pakistan.
“One expects many valuable lessons to be recounted which will Insha’Allah guide the court to achieving the constitutional aspiration of dispensing inexpensive and expeditious justice to the people of Pakistan whilst also upholding the salient features of fundamental rights, rule of law and democracy.”
On the issue of population management, the chief justice said that extensive data had been collected from the Population Council and also data about the success of such programmes in other Muslim countries, such as Iran and Bangladesh.
“After consultation with the relevant stakeholders is completed the court aims to revive the proceedings in Human Rights Case No.17599 of 2018 (regarding alarming high population growth rate in the country) to issue appropriate directions to the said stakeholders for taking measures to facilitate voluntary management of the growth rate,” he said.
“Pakistan is a developing country with resources that are yet untapped for the nation’s prosperity. However, the fruits of progress are denied to the people due to the unchecked growth of our population,” he continued.
“Today we are dependent on imports for basic food items like wheat, edible oil and milk. Even the provision of basic services such as education, health and infrastructure, promised to the people by the Constitution under their right to life enshrined in Article 9, is challenging for the State.”
Chief Justice Bandial stressed the need for promoting resource generation and for curtailing import-based consumption. “The principal means to achieve both objectives is to have a skilled and productive population that does not consume more than the resources generated by them,” he added.
“This is a policymaking objective with which the court does not ordinarily interfere in deference to the principle of trichotomy of powers. However, to safeguard the right to life of the people, the court does possess jurisdiction to inquire from and direct the concerned persons and institutions to channel their energies towards this public interest initiative.”
The chief justice also addressed the issue of backlog of cases. He said that the backlog in the high courts, excluding the Sindh High Court, and district courts had been reduced to 2,038,013 on July 31, 2022 from 2,054,739 on February 28.
“I may at this point mention from the material that I have read that Bangladesh has a pendency of 3.93 million cases as of 31.12.2020 and India has a pendency of 47 million cases as of 02.08.2022 so in comparative terms we are much better off but I am glad the Bar is not satisfied and nor are we. Insha’Allah we will try to reduce the pendency further to provide expeditious justice to the people of Pakistan.”
Express Tribune
Advertisement
Addressing the opening ceremony of the new judicial year, 2022-23, the chief justice said that the court was committed to defending the Constitution in all its aspects and it would not hesitate to act if the Constitution or the constitutional institutions were undermined.
The chief justice pointed out that the political events taking place in the country since March had been accompanied by an avalanche of political cases, involving complex questions of constitutional law.
“One such case where the Court intervened was the ruling issued by the then Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly on 22.07.2022,” Chief Justice Bandial said. “After a three day hearing the Court set aside the ruling of the Deputy Speaker and the result of the election on 26.07.2022.”
Continuing, he said that the decision prompted a sharp reaction from political quarters, who were disappointed by the judgment. He added that the displeasure of the federal government with the decision became evident two days later during a meeting of the JCP.
The commission, he said, had been convened to consider the names of five nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court. “These nominees were supported by four of the six Judicial Members of the Commission,” he added.
However, he continued, “the representatives of the Federal Government in the Commission either deferred or chose not to support the candidates proposed by the Chairman”, adding: “As a result, the meeting had to be adjourned.”
“I ponder, does such a reaction by the federal government to an adverse decision of the court reflect any respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary? I simply leave the matter there,” the chief justice said.
Chief Justice Bandial also expressed surprise over the appearance of former Supreme Court Bar Association presidents regarding the constitution of the full court to decide the petition against the Punjab Assembly deputy speaker’s ruling.
“Nevertheless, it did surprise the court that during the hearing of the case the current and several past office-bearers of the bar approached the bench with a request for constituting a full court on the urging of the respondent leader of the political party that is also the principal member of the coalition in the federal government,” he said.
“No legal ground for doing so was given. The request was unexpected because the bar was pleading a partisan political cause without even being a party to the case,” he further said.
The chief justice told the ceremony that the apex court was committed to defending the Constitution in all its aspects – its commands and directions to the state and the people, the enforcement of fundamental rights and for the lawful functioning of all the institutions.
“The court will not hesitate to act if the constitution and/or the constitutional institutions are undermined, violated or attacked. The court is aware that the country is presently faced with serious economic and political challenges,” the chief justice said.
However, Chief Justice Bandial pointed out that the situation had become worse with the recent floods, which had displaced nearly 33 million people and engulfed almost one-third of the country under water.
“To help with the flood relief efforts, apart from making private contributions, the judges of this court have also voluntarily contributed an additional amount equivalent to their three days salary while the Supreme Court staff has donated their two days salary,” he said.
“However, despite generous donations from all quarters of the country, the incumbent government still faces a formidable task and the unenviable obligation to steer the country towards rehabilitation and recovery,” he added.
“In such conditions, the court urges all political parties, their leaders, all decision makers and privileged members of society to put aside their differences and grievances and to act in unity for the public interest and the national good.”
Chief Justice Bandial emphasised that the time had come to forget personal agendas and to work collectively for the nation-building. He assured that the court would continue to protect the Constitution and the fundamental rights assured to the people of Pakistan.
In this regard, the chief justice said, a Conference titled ‘75 Years of Pakistan’ is being held by the Law and Justice Commission later this month to examine the role to be played by the judiciary in shaping the future trajectory of Pakistan.
“One expects many valuable lessons to be recounted which will Insha’Allah guide the court to achieving the constitutional aspiration of dispensing inexpensive and expeditious justice to the people of Pakistan whilst also upholding the salient features of fundamental rights, rule of law and democracy.”
On the issue of population management, the chief justice said that extensive data had been collected from the Population Council and also data about the success of such programmes in other Muslim countries, such as Iran and Bangladesh.
“After consultation with the relevant stakeholders is completed the court aims to revive the proceedings in Human Rights Case No.17599 of 2018 (regarding alarming high population growth rate in the country) to issue appropriate directions to the said stakeholders for taking measures to facilitate voluntary management of the growth rate,” he said.
“Pakistan is a developing country with resources that are yet untapped for the nation’s prosperity. However, the fruits of progress are denied to the people due to the unchecked growth of our population,” he continued.
“Today we are dependent on imports for basic food items like wheat, edible oil and milk. Even the provision of basic services such as education, health and infrastructure, promised to the people by the Constitution under their right to life enshrined in Article 9, is challenging for the State.”
Chief Justice Bandial stressed the need for promoting resource generation and for curtailing import-based consumption. “The principal means to achieve both objectives is to have a skilled and productive population that does not consume more than the resources generated by them,” he added.
“This is a policymaking objective with which the court does not ordinarily interfere in deference to the principle of trichotomy of powers. However, to safeguard the right to life of the people, the court does possess jurisdiction to inquire from and direct the concerned persons and institutions to channel their energies towards this public interest initiative.”
The chief justice also addressed the issue of backlog of cases. He said that the backlog in the high courts, excluding the Sindh High Court, and district courts had been reduced to 2,038,013 on July 31, 2022 from 2,054,739 on February 28.
“I may at this point mention from the material that I have read that Bangladesh has a pendency of 3.93 million cases as of 31.12.2020 and India has a pendency of 47 million cases as of 02.08.2022 so in comparative terms we are much better off but I am glad the Bar is not satisfied and nor are we. Insha’Allah we will try to reduce the pendency further to provide expeditious justice to the people of Pakistan.”
Express Tribune
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
SC judges dismayed CJP ‘said more than he should have’
ISLAMABAD: Senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa and his colleague Justice Sardar Tariq Masood have expressed dismay over Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial’s speech at the new judicial year ceremony, saying he “said much more” than what he was supposed to say at the event.
Addressed to all members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), the joint letter written on Thursday states that: “The object of the ceremony (as stated by the CJP) was to identify our priorities and set out our vision for the coming year, but the CJP said much more. He sought to justify decisions of the Supreme Court, respond to criticism of its judgments, and unilaterally speak on behalf of the Supreme Court.”
They added: “The Supreme Court does not comprise the CJP alone, [but] it includes all the judges of the Supreme Court. The CJP commenting on pending cases was disconcerting.”
Both Justice Isa and Justice Masood, who are among the nine members of the JCP, had also written letters soon after the commission’s July 28 meeting, claiming that the meeting disapproved the nominations to elevate judges.
In joint letter, justices Isa and Masood term CJ Umar Ata Bandial’s comments on pending cases ‘disconcerting’
In the latest letter, they wondered whether judges should commend themselves for the number of cases decided “when more than a third of the Supreme Court lies vacant”, noting that a “full court would undoubtedly have decided far more cases”.
They also disclosed that they had repeatedly called upon the JCP chairman to convene a meeting of the commission — both before and after the notified summer vacations — “to enable making of nominations to the Supreme Court”.
“To stress the urgency, we had stated that not filling the vacancies is reckless disregard of a constitutional duty. But all to no avail,” the two senior judges regretted.
“The Supreme Court cannot be placed in suspended animation till such time that members, to use the words of the CJP, ‘support the candidates proposed by the chairman’,” they said.
The copy of the joint letter has also been sent to Supreme Court’s acting registrar, who is also JCP’s acting secretary, with a direction “to release the letter and its Urdu translation to media since it pertains to CJP’s address which was widely reported”.
Justice Isa and Justice Masood said the CJP allegedly made “uncalled for and disparaging” remarks about the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and its current and several past office bearers, “accusing them of political partisanship because they had requested that the full court be constituted to hear the cited case.”
They regretted that when the apex court had declined their request, the CJP could not “disparage and attribute motives to them”.
Moreover, they said the CJP further sought to justify what the apex court did by needlessly asserting that the request had no legal ground when the Constitution required the Supreme Court to give decisions.
But what was “most inappropriate, and unreasonable,” was to mention the working and decisions of the JCP in the speech, which was a separate and independent body under the Constitution, the judges said in the letter.
The CJP had stated that the candidates proposed by JCP chairman were not approved, and blamed the representatives of the federal government, namely the law minister and attorney general for Pakistan, and also expressed his displeasure, the letter said.
“Under no circumstances should the chairman of the JCP say what was said,” the letter wondered, stressing that as the commissions’ chairman, the CJP must abide by its decisions than allegedly attacking its members and to do so publicly only because they did not support his candidates.
What the CJP said was also contrary to the record, the letter said, adding that it was not correct that his candidates were supported by four members of JCP, which the “unauthorised” release of the audio-recording of the meeting confirms.
Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany also did not support all his candidates, the letter recalled, stating it was wrong to categorise the JCP meeting as a pre-scheduled meeting and it was adjourned.
When chairman did not succeed in achieving his objective, he took the majority decision of the JCP as a personal affront and walked out of the meeting, the letter recalled.
“All members of the JCP, including its chairman, are equal. The only additional responsibility of the CJP is for him to act as its chairman,” the letter said, adding the Constitution stipulated that the JCP by majority of its total membership would nominate judges.
DAWN
ISLAMABAD: Senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa and his colleague Justice Sardar Tariq Masood have expressed dismay over Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial’s speech at the new judicial year ceremony, saying he “said much more” than what he was supposed to say at the event.
Addressed to all members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), the joint letter written on Thursday states that: “The object of the ceremony (as stated by the CJP) was to identify our priorities and set out our vision for the coming year, but the CJP said much more. He sought to justify decisions of the Supreme Court, respond to criticism of its judgments, and unilaterally speak on behalf of the Supreme Court.”
They added: “The Supreme Court does not comprise the CJP alone, [but] it includes all the judges of the Supreme Court. The CJP commenting on pending cases was disconcerting.”
Both Justice Isa and Justice Masood, who are among the nine members of the JCP, had also written letters soon after the commission’s July 28 meeting, claiming that the meeting disapproved the nominations to elevate judges.
In joint letter, justices Isa and Masood term CJ Umar Ata Bandial’s comments on pending cases ‘disconcerting’
In the latest letter, they wondered whether judges should commend themselves for the number of cases decided “when more than a third of the Supreme Court lies vacant”, noting that a “full court would undoubtedly have decided far more cases”.
They also disclosed that they had repeatedly called upon the JCP chairman to convene a meeting of the commission — both before and after the notified summer vacations — “to enable making of nominations to the Supreme Court”.
“To stress the urgency, we had stated that not filling the vacancies is reckless disregard of a constitutional duty. But all to no avail,” the two senior judges regretted.
“The Supreme Court cannot be placed in suspended animation till such time that members, to use the words of the CJP, ‘support the candidates proposed by the chairman’,” they said.
The copy of the joint letter has also been sent to Supreme Court’s acting registrar, who is also JCP’s acting secretary, with a direction “to release the letter and its Urdu translation to media since it pertains to CJP’s address which was widely reported”.
Justice Isa and Justice Masood said the CJP allegedly made “uncalled for and disparaging” remarks about the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and its current and several past office bearers, “accusing them of political partisanship because they had requested that the full court be constituted to hear the cited case.”
They regretted that when the apex court had declined their request, the CJP could not “disparage and attribute motives to them”.
Moreover, they said the CJP further sought to justify what the apex court did by needlessly asserting that the request had no legal ground when the Constitution required the Supreme Court to give decisions.
But what was “most inappropriate, and unreasonable,” was to mention the working and decisions of the JCP in the speech, which was a separate and independent body under the Constitution, the judges said in the letter.
The CJP had stated that the candidates proposed by JCP chairman were not approved, and blamed the representatives of the federal government, namely the law minister and attorney general for Pakistan, and also expressed his displeasure, the letter said.
“Under no circumstances should the chairman of the JCP say what was said,” the letter wondered, stressing that as the commissions’ chairman, the CJP must abide by its decisions than allegedly attacking its members and to do so publicly only because they did not support his candidates.
What the CJP said was also contrary to the record, the letter said, adding that it was not correct that his candidates were supported by four members of JCP, which the “unauthorised” release of the audio-recording of the meeting confirms.
Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany also did not support all his candidates, the letter recalled, stating it was wrong to categorise the JCP meeting as a pre-scheduled meeting and it was adjourned.
When chairman did not succeed in achieving his objective, he took the majority decision of the JCP as a personal affront and walked out of the meeting, the letter recalled.
“All members of the JCP, including its chairman, are equal. The only additional responsibility of the CJP is for him to act as its chairman,” the letter said, adding the Constitution stipulated that the JCP by majority of its total membership would nominate judges.
DAWN
Vatta
Debutant
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2022
- Runs
- 125
Exactly. Seems to take very neutral naps...
Vatta
Debutant
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2022
- Runs
- 125
When is the trial of Rana Muhammad Shamim for his porky pies, in his sworn affadavit?
Seems to a be a strange world when Person A says that legal action will be taken against those who tortured Person B and facilitated that torture, Person A ends up with a Contempt of Court charge.
Yet a former Chief Judge admits lying, yet nary a word from Mr Bandial.
Seems to a be a strange world when Person A says that legal action will be taken against those who tortured Person B and facilitated that torture, Person A ends up with a Contempt of Court charge.
Yet a former Chief Judge admits lying, yet nary a word from Mr Bandial.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
:
Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said on Tuesday that Article 62(1)(f), which holds the ultimate punishment of lifetime disqualification of lawmakers, is a 'draconian' constitutional provision.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by CJ Bandial, observed this while hearing a petition filed by former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) senator Faisal Vawda, challenging his lifelong disqualification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the subsequent ruling by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Advertisement
During the proceedings today, CJ Bandial observed that “Article 62(1)(f) is a draconian provision”, and added that “this case will be heard with utmost care”.
Read Article 62: The landmark verdict
“Vawda had contested elections in 2018 and two years later a disqualification petition was filed in the high court for submitting a false affidavit,” argued Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad.
However, the court observed that the ECP retained the right to investigate a false affidavit.
“Even if the SC declares the lifetime disqualification orders illegal, the facts would remain the same,” remarked CJ Bandial, adding that the ECP has “properly reviewed” the case.
“The IHC has clearly stated in its judgment that Faisal Vawda had accepted dual citizenship,” argued the lawyer Farooq Hamid Naek.
“The only question, in this case, is whether or not the ECP can issue orders for lifetime disqualification,” observed CJ Bandial.
Due to time constraints, the hearing was postponed until October 6.
Article 62 Amendment Bill
A day earlier, a bill to amend Article 62 of the Constitution was presented in the Senate. The bill moved by PPP Senator Palwasha Khan recommends deleting the words Sadiq and Ameen and replacing them with the words Rastgo and Wafa Shaar.
The bill states: "In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in Article 62, in clause (1), in sub-clause (f), for the expression 'honest and ameen', the expression 'veracious and devoted' shall be inserted."
According to Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, a person may be qualified or elected as a member of the parliament provided he has adequate knowledge of Islam and is essentially 'sadiq and ameen' (honest and righteous).
"In literal terms, Sadiq is a qualitative metaphor used for one who has never spoken a lie. Ameen refers to one who has never breached anyone's trust. These two words are used in Arabic as laqab for Holy Prophet (PBUH) for his unprecedented truthfulness and honesty which no man can practice and reach the level."
It further states that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution imposes Islamic ethical conditions for eligibility of a candidate for election to the parliament but these are made applicable to both Muslim as well as non-Muslim candidates for parliamentary membership.
In this regard, it added, the current code of conduct of the members of United Kingdom can be a good example as the universality of standards of honorable conduct in public life in the contemporary democratic world, irrespective of faith or culture, makes it plausible for all candidates for the parliament including non-Muslim candidates to be eligible.
Surprising as it may seem, it was earlier reported that the removal of articles 62 and 63 from the Constitution during the preparation of the draft of the 18th Amendment was opposed by none other than the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) itself.
Read more Sharing classified info to invoke Article 62
However, on July 28, 2017, history went full circle when, based on a reading of Article 62, the Supreme Court ordered PML-N supremo Nawaz to be disqualified from the National Assembly for ‘dishonesty’ – namely his failure to declare certain assets.
“This bill has nothing to do with Nawaz Sharif or his disqualification; it’s my own bill and I haven’t had any consultation with the PML-N about it before tabling it in the Senate,” Senator Palwasha said while talking to The Express Tribune.
The senator added that “the bill seeks to curb the misuse of titles of Sadiq and Ameen as these are divine attributes and neither could anyone claim them for himself nor could they be awarded to someone except the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”
Express Tribune
Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said on Tuesday that Article 62(1)(f), which holds the ultimate punishment of lifetime disqualification of lawmakers, is a 'draconian' constitutional provision.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by CJ Bandial, observed this while hearing a petition filed by former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) senator Faisal Vawda, challenging his lifelong disqualification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the subsequent ruling by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Advertisement
During the proceedings today, CJ Bandial observed that “Article 62(1)(f) is a draconian provision”, and added that “this case will be heard with utmost care”.
Read Article 62: The landmark verdict
“Vawda had contested elections in 2018 and two years later a disqualification petition was filed in the high court for submitting a false affidavit,” argued Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad.
However, the court observed that the ECP retained the right to investigate a false affidavit.
“Even if the SC declares the lifetime disqualification orders illegal, the facts would remain the same,” remarked CJ Bandial, adding that the ECP has “properly reviewed” the case.
“The IHC has clearly stated in its judgment that Faisal Vawda had accepted dual citizenship,” argued the lawyer Farooq Hamid Naek.
“The only question, in this case, is whether or not the ECP can issue orders for lifetime disqualification,” observed CJ Bandial.
Due to time constraints, the hearing was postponed until October 6.
Article 62 Amendment Bill
A day earlier, a bill to amend Article 62 of the Constitution was presented in the Senate. The bill moved by PPP Senator Palwasha Khan recommends deleting the words Sadiq and Ameen and replacing them with the words Rastgo and Wafa Shaar.
The bill states: "In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in Article 62, in clause (1), in sub-clause (f), for the expression 'honest and ameen', the expression 'veracious and devoted' shall be inserted."
According to Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, a person may be qualified or elected as a member of the parliament provided he has adequate knowledge of Islam and is essentially 'sadiq and ameen' (honest and righteous).
"In literal terms, Sadiq is a qualitative metaphor used for one who has never spoken a lie. Ameen refers to one who has never breached anyone's trust. These two words are used in Arabic as laqab for Holy Prophet (PBUH) for his unprecedented truthfulness and honesty which no man can practice and reach the level."
It further states that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution imposes Islamic ethical conditions for eligibility of a candidate for election to the parliament but these are made applicable to both Muslim as well as non-Muslim candidates for parliamentary membership.
In this regard, it added, the current code of conduct of the members of United Kingdom can be a good example as the universality of standards of honorable conduct in public life in the contemporary democratic world, irrespective of faith or culture, makes it plausible for all candidates for the parliament including non-Muslim candidates to be eligible.
Surprising as it may seem, it was earlier reported that the removal of articles 62 and 63 from the Constitution during the preparation of the draft of the 18th Amendment was opposed by none other than the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) itself.
Read more Sharing classified info to invoke Article 62
However, on July 28, 2017, history went full circle when, based on a reading of Article 62, the Supreme Court ordered PML-N supremo Nawaz to be disqualified from the National Assembly for ‘dishonesty’ – namely his failure to declare certain assets.
“This bill has nothing to do with Nawaz Sharif or his disqualification; it’s my own bill and I haven’t had any consultation with the PML-N about it before tabling it in the Senate,” Senator Palwasha said while talking to The Express Tribune.
The senator added that “the bill seeks to curb the misuse of titles of Sadiq and Ameen as these are divine attributes and neither could anyone claim them for himself nor could they be awarded to someone except the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”
Express Tribune
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said on Thursday that the declaration of Article 62(1)(f), which holds the ultimate punishment of lifetime disqualification of lawmakers, can only be given by the court.
The chief justice observed that no one can be declared dishonest without examining the evidence, and added that “it is not so easy to disqualify someone for life”.
The CJ made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Faisal Vawda challenging his lifelong disqualification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the subsequent ruling by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
“Judicial declaration means recording of evidence. The Supreme Court (SC) in its judgments has set criteria for the application of Article 62(1)(f),” observed the CJ.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by the chief justice, comprising Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case.
Read: Lifetime disqualification: Top judge’s observation triggers debate
Justice Bandial further stated that Faisal Vawda had renounced his US citizenship after submitting his nomination papers to the ECP.
“In the present case, the debate should be whether the disqualification is limited to contesting elections or for life,” stated the chief justice.
During the proceedings today, Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad argued that the former senator neither hid facts nor did anything in bad faith.
“When did Faisal Vawda submit his nomination papers?” asked Justice Shah.
The lawyer informed the court that the PTI leader submitted his nomination papers on June 7, 2018, and scrutiny took place on June 18.
Justice Mansoor further asked, “When did Faisal Vawda submit the affidavit?”
“Vawda submitted the affidavit on June 11, 2018. The returning officer was also told that he had given up his US nationality. Vawda went to the US Embassy and stated that he is giving up his nationality,” Sajjad told the court.
He further added that the PTI leader also got his National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis (NICOP) cancelled.
Questioning the lawyer, Justice Shah asked, “Did you go to the embassy and verbally tell them to cancel the passport?”
“He didn't have to give the proof of cancelling the nationality,” answered the lawyer.
Also read: Vawda disqualified for life in dual nationality case
“You did not bother to clear the issue of dual citizenship before submitting your affidavit on June 11?” asked Justice Shah further.
The PTI leader’s lawyer stated that NADRA issued a certificate of cancellation of US citizenship on May 29, 2018.
Justice Ayesha maintained that Vawda's US citizenship had not been cancelled at the time of filing the affidavit.
Vawda’s lawyer told the court that the real question is the declaration of life-long disqualification which the commission cannot grant.
“Article 63(1)(c) applies to dual citizenship. A member on dual citizenship is only de-seated, not disqualified for life,” the lawyer prayed to the court.
The court adjourned further hearing of the case till October 12.
‘Draconian' constitutional provision
Earlier this week, the CJP termed Article 62(1)(f) a 'draconian' constitutional provision.
He made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Vawda challenging his lifelong disqualification.
During the proceedings, CJ Bandial observed that “Article 62(1)(f) is a draconian provision”, and added that “this case will be heard with utmost care”.
“Vawda had contested elections in 2018 and two years later a disqualification petition was filed in the high court for submitting a false affidavit,” argued Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad.
However, the court observed that the ECP retained the right to investigate a false affidavit.
Express Tribune
The chief justice observed that no one can be declared dishonest without examining the evidence, and added that “it is not so easy to disqualify someone for life”.
The CJ made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Faisal Vawda challenging his lifelong disqualification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the subsequent ruling by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
“Judicial declaration means recording of evidence. The Supreme Court (SC) in its judgments has set criteria for the application of Article 62(1)(f),” observed the CJ.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by the chief justice, comprising Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case.
Read: Lifetime disqualification: Top judge’s observation triggers debate
Justice Bandial further stated that Faisal Vawda had renounced his US citizenship after submitting his nomination papers to the ECP.
“In the present case, the debate should be whether the disqualification is limited to contesting elections or for life,” stated the chief justice.
During the proceedings today, Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad argued that the former senator neither hid facts nor did anything in bad faith.
“When did Faisal Vawda submit his nomination papers?” asked Justice Shah.
The lawyer informed the court that the PTI leader submitted his nomination papers on June 7, 2018, and scrutiny took place on June 18.
Justice Mansoor further asked, “When did Faisal Vawda submit the affidavit?”
“Vawda submitted the affidavit on June 11, 2018. The returning officer was also told that he had given up his US nationality. Vawda went to the US Embassy and stated that he is giving up his nationality,” Sajjad told the court.
He further added that the PTI leader also got his National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis (NICOP) cancelled.
Questioning the lawyer, Justice Shah asked, “Did you go to the embassy and verbally tell them to cancel the passport?”
“He didn't have to give the proof of cancelling the nationality,” answered the lawyer.
Also read: Vawda disqualified for life in dual nationality case
“You did not bother to clear the issue of dual citizenship before submitting your affidavit on June 11?” asked Justice Shah further.
The PTI leader’s lawyer stated that NADRA issued a certificate of cancellation of US citizenship on May 29, 2018.
Justice Ayesha maintained that Vawda's US citizenship had not been cancelled at the time of filing the affidavit.
Vawda’s lawyer told the court that the real question is the declaration of life-long disqualification which the commission cannot grant.
“Article 63(1)(c) applies to dual citizenship. A member on dual citizenship is only de-seated, not disqualified for life,” the lawyer prayed to the court.
The court adjourned further hearing of the case till October 12.
‘Draconian' constitutional provision
Earlier this week, the CJP termed Article 62(1)(f) a 'draconian' constitutional provision.
He made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Vawda challenging his lifelong disqualification.
During the proceedings, CJ Bandial observed that “Article 62(1)(f) is a draconian provision”, and added that “this case will be heard with utmost care”.
“Vawda had contested elections in 2018 and two years later a disqualification petition was filed in the high court for submitting a false affidavit,” argued Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad.
However, the court observed that the ECP retained the right to investigate a false affidavit.
Express Tribune
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — both Supreme Court judges — have urged Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial to call a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for the appointment of judges on the five vacant SC seats and “avoid unwanted rumours of petty politics and lobbying”, it emerged on Saturday.
In a letter dated October 7, they explained that a JCP meeting should “automatically be scheduled” at the earliest in case of any vacancy in the apex court to fulfil the constitutional obligation under Article 175A(8) of the Constitution that states: “The commission by majority of its total membership shall nominate to the Parliamentary Committee one person, for each vacancy of a Judge in the Supreme Court, a High Court or the Federal Shariat Court, as the case may be.”
The judges said that it was the responsibility of every JCP member to ensure vacancies in the courts were timely filled out and any inordinate delay in this would be “unfortunate and undesirable”.
The letter said there were currently five vacancies in the apex court since February, adding that they had “time and time again requested” the CJP to hold a JCP meeting to fill the vacancies but their meetings with him on the subject “ended in vain”.
Justice Masood and Justice Shah pointed out that Justice Qazi Faez Isa, too, had written to the CJP on September 28 regarding the same issue.
“It is important to underline that delay in filling the vacancy gives rise to unwanted rumours of petty politics, lobbying and quid pro quo appointments, which not only undermines the institution but also seriously impairs the neutrality and the transparency of the appointment process,” the letter highlights.
The judges said they had taken an oath under the Constitution to protect and defend it, and recalled that the legal position outlined by the apex court in the 1996 Al Jehad Trust case stated that permanent vacancies in judicial offices should be filled in “immediately and no later than 30 days”.
“The ordinate delay of almost nine months in this case must be urgently addressed first,” the letter stresses, adding that the judges had already suggested that the five high court chief justices should be considered for the vacant positions or consider the top two judges from each high court and then conduct a vote in the next JCP meeting.
The judges said that the above were the best options for moving forward until more sophisticated selection criteria and constitutionally compliant rules could be framed.
Justice Isa’s letter
In his letter to the CJP last month, Jutsice Isa had expressed concerns that despite the pendency of over 50,000 cases, five vacancies of judges of the top court were still vacant.
He pointed out that the first seat of the SC fell vacant after the retirement of former CJP Gulzar Ahmed on February 1 when Justice Bandial took over as the CJP.
Justice Qazi Mohammad Amin stood retired on March 23, Justice Maqbool Baqir on April 4, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel on July 13 and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on August 12.
“Over 50,000 cases have accumulated in the Supreme Court. The chief justice and 16 judges constitute the Supreme Court. However, there are five vacancies in the Supreme Court, which work out to 726 lost days. It pains me to state that cases filed in the Supreme Court are unlikely to ever get decided if the vacancies are not filled in.”
The letter added: “People of Pakistan invested heavily in the Supreme Court which employs about 700 staff and has a considerable budget. Therefore, it is not understandable why the Supreme Court is working at a significant 30 per cent reduced capacity. Every passing day that the five vacancies remain unfilled adds to the existing mountain of cases, threatening to render it insurmountable, which may leave the Supreme Court dysfunctional. The same staff and money which would serve a full court also serve a truncated one, therefore, there is a needless haemorrhaging of resources.
“The Constitution requires that expeditious justice be ensured and this responsibility falls upon the Supreme Court, of which you are the chief justice. We must not let down the people of Pakistan, erode their confidence in the Supreme Court and continue to waste their hard-earned money,” said the letter.
Justice Isa had urged the CJP to “please convene a meeting of the commission immediately to enable the commission to nominate judges of Supreme Court.”
It may be mentioned that the JCP on July 28 rejected five nominations of the CJP for five vacant seats of the apex court by a majority of five to four votes as the government members — the law minister and attorney general — also opposed these nominations.
Justice Bandial expressed his grievance with the ruling coalition during the opening speech of the new judicial year 2022-23, questioning whether an adverse decision from the court justified what he called the government’s ‘unprecedented’ step to refuse support for judges proposed by him before the JCP.
The CJP mentioned the July 26 apex court decision, which declared Chaudhry Parvez Elahi as the chief minister of Punjab in the July 22 run-off poll, observing that the displeasure of the federal government on the decision became evident two days later at the JCP meeting on July 28.
However, Justice Isa and Justice Masood reacted to the CJP speech and said Justice Bandial had undermined the JCP by refusing to accept its decision on the elevation of judges.
DAWN
In a letter dated October 7, they explained that a JCP meeting should “automatically be scheduled” at the earliest in case of any vacancy in the apex court to fulfil the constitutional obligation under Article 175A(8) of the Constitution that states: “The commission by majority of its total membership shall nominate to the Parliamentary Committee one person, for each vacancy of a Judge in the Supreme Court, a High Court or the Federal Shariat Court, as the case may be.”
The judges said that it was the responsibility of every JCP member to ensure vacancies in the courts were timely filled out and any inordinate delay in this would be “unfortunate and undesirable”.
The letter said there were currently five vacancies in the apex court since February, adding that they had “time and time again requested” the CJP to hold a JCP meeting to fill the vacancies but their meetings with him on the subject “ended in vain”.
Justice Masood and Justice Shah pointed out that Justice Qazi Faez Isa, too, had written to the CJP on September 28 regarding the same issue.
“It is important to underline that delay in filling the vacancy gives rise to unwanted rumours of petty politics, lobbying and quid pro quo appointments, which not only undermines the institution but also seriously impairs the neutrality and the transparency of the appointment process,” the letter highlights.
The judges said they had taken an oath under the Constitution to protect and defend it, and recalled that the legal position outlined by the apex court in the 1996 Al Jehad Trust case stated that permanent vacancies in judicial offices should be filled in “immediately and no later than 30 days”.
“The ordinate delay of almost nine months in this case must be urgently addressed first,” the letter stresses, adding that the judges had already suggested that the five high court chief justices should be considered for the vacant positions or consider the top two judges from each high court and then conduct a vote in the next JCP meeting.
The judges said that the above were the best options for moving forward until more sophisticated selection criteria and constitutionally compliant rules could be framed.
Justice Isa’s letter
In his letter to the CJP last month, Jutsice Isa had expressed concerns that despite the pendency of over 50,000 cases, five vacancies of judges of the top court were still vacant.
He pointed out that the first seat of the SC fell vacant after the retirement of former CJP Gulzar Ahmed on February 1 when Justice Bandial took over as the CJP.
Justice Qazi Mohammad Amin stood retired on March 23, Justice Maqbool Baqir on April 4, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel on July 13 and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on August 12.
“Over 50,000 cases have accumulated in the Supreme Court. The chief justice and 16 judges constitute the Supreme Court. However, there are five vacancies in the Supreme Court, which work out to 726 lost days. It pains me to state that cases filed in the Supreme Court are unlikely to ever get decided if the vacancies are not filled in.”
The letter added: “People of Pakistan invested heavily in the Supreme Court which employs about 700 staff and has a considerable budget. Therefore, it is not understandable why the Supreme Court is working at a significant 30 per cent reduced capacity. Every passing day that the five vacancies remain unfilled adds to the existing mountain of cases, threatening to render it insurmountable, which may leave the Supreme Court dysfunctional. The same staff and money which would serve a full court also serve a truncated one, therefore, there is a needless haemorrhaging of resources.
“The Constitution requires that expeditious justice be ensured and this responsibility falls upon the Supreme Court, of which you are the chief justice. We must not let down the people of Pakistan, erode their confidence in the Supreme Court and continue to waste their hard-earned money,” said the letter.
Justice Isa had urged the CJP to “please convene a meeting of the commission immediately to enable the commission to nominate judges of Supreme Court.”
It may be mentioned that the JCP on July 28 rejected five nominations of the CJP for five vacant seats of the apex court by a majority of five to four votes as the government members — the law minister and attorney general — also opposed these nominations.
Justice Bandial expressed his grievance with the ruling coalition during the opening speech of the new judicial year 2022-23, questioning whether an adverse decision from the court justified what he called the government’s ‘unprecedented’ step to refuse support for judges proposed by him before the JCP.
The CJP mentioned the July 26 apex court decision, which declared Chaudhry Parvez Elahi as the chief minister of Punjab in the July 22 run-off poll, observing that the displeasure of the federal government on the decision became evident two days later at the JCP meeting on July 28.
However, Justice Isa and Justice Masood reacted to the CJP speech and said Justice Bandial had undermined the JCP by refusing to accept its decision on the elevation of judges.
DAWN
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
CJP ADMINISTERS OATH TO THREE NEWLY APPOINTED SC JUDGES
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Friday administered oath to the three newly-appointed judges of the Supreme Court, ARY News reported.
As per details, CJP Umar Ata Bandial administered oath to Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, a judge of Sindh High Court, LHC’s Justice Shahid and Justice Athar Minallah, of IHC.
The ceremony was attended by senior judges of the SC, the additional attorney general, senior lawyers and others.
On November 9, President Arif Alvi approved the elevation of Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC) Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Syed Azhar Rizvi to the Supreme Court (SC).
According to details, President Arif Alvi has signed the cabinet’s summary recommending to elevate the three judges to the Supreme Court. The President also approved the appointment of Justice Amir Farooq as Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Justice Athar Minallah was elevated to the SC, along with Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
On November 4, the parliamentary committee for the appointment of judges, in their emergency session, approved the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) recommendation to elevate IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah to the Supreme Court.
ARY
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Friday administered oath to the three newly-appointed judges of the Supreme Court, ARY News reported.
As per details, CJP Umar Ata Bandial administered oath to Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, a judge of Sindh High Court, LHC’s Justice Shahid and Justice Athar Minallah, of IHC.
The ceremony was attended by senior judges of the SC, the additional attorney general, senior lawyers and others.
On November 9, President Arif Alvi approved the elevation of Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC) Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Syed Azhar Rizvi to the Supreme Court (SC).
According to details, President Arif Alvi has signed the cabinet’s summary recommending to elevate the three judges to the Supreme Court. The President also approved the appointment of Justice Amir Farooq as Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Justice Athar Minallah was elevated to the SC, along with Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
On November 4, the parliamentary committee for the appointment of judges, in their emergency session, approved the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) recommendation to elevate IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah to the Supreme Court.
ARY
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Former prime minister and PTI Chairman Imran Khan has urged Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial “to stand with the nation to save the country from thieves”.
“I respectfully request honourable chief justice sahab on behalf of the nation that the time has come for Pakistan’s judiciary to stand with the nation and bring powerful under the law,” he said on Sunday while addressing the PTI’s long march participants via video link.
“I respectfully request honourable chief justice sahab on behalf of the nation that the time has come for Pakistan’s judiciary to stand with the nation and bring powerful under the law,” he said on Sunday while addressing the PTI’s long march participants via video link.
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
Except that the CJP is part of the same mafia . The SC have not stood with the PK people when it was needed the most, instead the SC has stood shoulder to shoulder with the establishment who are the biggest mafia
True. Funny how majority of the awaam support Imran but (almost) all of the people in the institutions favour the chor khandaans who have looted the county for 50 years.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
The judiciary came under fire in the upper house of parliament on Friday over remarks given by judges the previous day, which were seen by lawmakers as ‘political’ and ‘against parliament and the legislative processes’.
Senators belonging to various political parties voiced their objections to observations made by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, who said during a hearing on Thursday that parliament was being kept “systematically incomplete”.
The CJP also said that elections were the “real answer” to all issues and observed that the country’s most honest prime minister was sent packing by invoking a now-defunct article of the Constitution. Most inferred that the CJP was referring to former premier Mohammad Khan Junejo, who served in the late 1980s.
In the Senate on Friday, the harshest criticism of the CJP’s remarks came from Senator Irfanul Haque Siddiqui of the PML-N, who said the country’s top judge had no right to declare prime ministers - from Liaquat Ali Khan to Imran Khan - dishonest.
Irfan Siddiqui says chief justice has no right to declare PMs dishonest
The issue of observations made by lawmakers and judges about each other was raised by Senator Shahadat Awan, the state minister for law and justice, during Question Hour after a member questioned the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the Gun and Country Club’s special audit.
“This is not the job of the Supreme Court,” Senator Mushtaq Ahmad of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) said after the House was told that the apex court had taken notice of the allotment of Pakistan Sports Board’s land to the club and appointed a caretaker committee to audit the alleged irregularities under the court’s supervision.
However, the law minister noted that instead of parliamentarians and the judges passing remarks about each other, lines should be drawn. After he proposed that the matter be referred to a committee, Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani instantly referred the matter to the standing committee on law and justice.
‘Parliament must not be ridiculed’
In his fiery speech, Senator Siddiqui took strong exception to Justice Bandial’s Thursday remarks that the country just had one honest prime minister. The senator said that though the CJP did not name anyone, he was perhaps referring to former premier Junejo.
“Who gave him [CJP] the privilege to declare prime ministers from Liaquat Ali Khan to Imran Khan as dishonest?” he asked. The courts should not lash the parliament on its back, he said and wondered whether it would be acceptable if someone said the country had just one honest chief justice.
Describing the CJP’s remarks as an attack on the prestige and sovereignty of the House, the senator said neither the judiciary nor the armed forces were representatives of the people. “The parliament comprises the chosen representatives of the public and it must not be ridiculed,” he remarked.
He said the chief justice made some remarks in a case that had no direct link with the elections and other related matters. The CJP said the parliament was incomplete and was not being completed intentionally and the legislation being made by the parliament was controversial, the senator said.
Describing CJP’s remarks as “disturbing”, Senator Siddiqui said the parliamentarians held the judiciary in high esteem.
Referred to the “judicial murder” of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the endorsement of four martial laws, permission to a uniformed general to contest elections and the removal of a prime minister for not getting salary from his son, Senator Siddiqui said: “We have bowed our heads before every decision of the judiciary and will do so in future.”
Saying that the chair has already referred the matter to the law and justice committee through a ruling, he said the institutions were bent on encroaching on others’ space and every encroachment was directed towards parliament.
“The judiciary and the apex court had its jurisdiction,” he said, adding that the judicial activism started with the restoration of former CJP Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.
“The laws and constitutional amendments passed by the parliament are being challenged in the courts,” he said and referred to amendments made by the parliament in NAB laws.
Referring to CJP’s remarks about the parliament, he asked whether the courts ever questioned martial law administrators and passed such remarks during martial regimes.
He said that the courts should avoid giving political statements by overstepping their jurisdiction. If you find a law to be flawed and repugnant to the Constitution, you can annul it and nobody can stop you“, he remarked.
Senator Siddiqui, however, surprised many when he agreed with the PTI’s demand for conducting general elections for Punjab and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies within 90 days after the dissolution of the assemblies.
PTI supports CJP’s remarks
In response to Senator Irfan Siddiqui’s speech, Leader of Opposition in the House Dr Shahzad Waseem said the CJP’s remarks should be taken as criticism and not an insult. “Respect is commanded and not demanded,” he stressed.
Supporting Justice Bandial’s remarks that the parliament was incomplete, Senator Waseem of the PTI said the majority had been converted into a minority by “the worst kind of horse-trading” and the country’s largest party had been ousted “while abusing the Constitution”.
Referring to the delay in elections of provincial assemblies, he said if the polls were not held within 90 days, then this book of the Constitution should be closed. “I have my fears that this will open the path of civil unrest, which we can’t afford in the given circumstances,” he argued.
Earlier, another PTI senator, Syed Shibli Faraz, said that there was anxiety and tension among the public as well as legislators, as the way shown by the Constitution was not being followed.
Attempts were underway to defer the polls against the dictates of the Constitution, he said and called for holding timely and free and fair elections “to preserve democracy and establish the rule of law”.
Criticising Punjab and KP officials for making a case for postponing the elections, he pointed out that all executive authorities under Article 220 of the Constitution were bound to assist the electoral body in discharging its duty of holding elections.
“The Election Commission has to fulfil its constitutional duty of holding timely elections to the provincial assemblies within the stipulated time period. Unfortunately, there is a civilian martial law in place in the country at present. However, we will not let this House or the Constitution be abused,” he said.
Earlier in his remarks, Senator Mushtaq Ahmad also lamented the addition of five cabinet members, claiming that Pakistan’s cabinet was now the largest in the world.
Published in Dawn, February 11th, 2023
Senators belonging to various political parties voiced their objections to observations made by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, who said during a hearing on Thursday that parliament was being kept “systematically incomplete”.
The CJP also said that elections were the “real answer” to all issues and observed that the country’s most honest prime minister was sent packing by invoking a now-defunct article of the Constitution. Most inferred that the CJP was referring to former premier Mohammad Khan Junejo, who served in the late 1980s.
In the Senate on Friday, the harshest criticism of the CJP’s remarks came from Senator Irfanul Haque Siddiqui of the PML-N, who said the country’s top judge had no right to declare prime ministers - from Liaquat Ali Khan to Imran Khan - dishonest.
Irfan Siddiqui says chief justice has no right to declare PMs dishonest
The issue of observations made by lawmakers and judges about each other was raised by Senator Shahadat Awan, the state minister for law and justice, during Question Hour after a member questioned the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the Gun and Country Club’s special audit.
“This is not the job of the Supreme Court,” Senator Mushtaq Ahmad of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) said after the House was told that the apex court had taken notice of the allotment of Pakistan Sports Board’s land to the club and appointed a caretaker committee to audit the alleged irregularities under the court’s supervision.
However, the law minister noted that instead of parliamentarians and the judges passing remarks about each other, lines should be drawn. After he proposed that the matter be referred to a committee, Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani instantly referred the matter to the standing committee on law and justice.
‘Parliament must not be ridiculed’
In his fiery speech, Senator Siddiqui took strong exception to Justice Bandial’s Thursday remarks that the country just had one honest prime minister. The senator said that though the CJP did not name anyone, he was perhaps referring to former premier Junejo.
“Who gave him [CJP] the privilege to declare prime ministers from Liaquat Ali Khan to Imran Khan as dishonest?” he asked. The courts should not lash the parliament on its back, he said and wondered whether it would be acceptable if someone said the country had just one honest chief justice.
Describing the CJP’s remarks as an attack on the prestige and sovereignty of the House, the senator said neither the judiciary nor the armed forces were representatives of the people. “The parliament comprises the chosen representatives of the public and it must not be ridiculed,” he remarked.
He said the chief justice made some remarks in a case that had no direct link with the elections and other related matters. The CJP said the parliament was incomplete and was not being completed intentionally and the legislation being made by the parliament was controversial, the senator said.
Describing CJP’s remarks as “disturbing”, Senator Siddiqui said the parliamentarians held the judiciary in high esteem.
Referred to the “judicial murder” of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the endorsement of four martial laws, permission to a uniformed general to contest elections and the removal of a prime minister for not getting salary from his son, Senator Siddiqui said: “We have bowed our heads before every decision of the judiciary and will do so in future.”
Saying that the chair has already referred the matter to the law and justice committee through a ruling, he said the institutions were bent on encroaching on others’ space and every encroachment was directed towards parliament.
“The judiciary and the apex court had its jurisdiction,” he said, adding that the judicial activism started with the restoration of former CJP Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.
“The laws and constitutional amendments passed by the parliament are being challenged in the courts,” he said and referred to amendments made by the parliament in NAB laws.
Referring to CJP’s remarks about the parliament, he asked whether the courts ever questioned martial law administrators and passed such remarks during martial regimes.
He said that the courts should avoid giving political statements by overstepping their jurisdiction. If you find a law to be flawed and repugnant to the Constitution, you can annul it and nobody can stop you“, he remarked.
Senator Siddiqui, however, surprised many when he agreed with the PTI’s demand for conducting general elections for Punjab and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies within 90 days after the dissolution of the assemblies.
PTI supports CJP’s remarks
In response to Senator Irfan Siddiqui’s speech, Leader of Opposition in the House Dr Shahzad Waseem said the CJP’s remarks should be taken as criticism and not an insult. “Respect is commanded and not demanded,” he stressed.
Supporting Justice Bandial’s remarks that the parliament was incomplete, Senator Waseem of the PTI said the majority had been converted into a minority by “the worst kind of horse-trading” and the country’s largest party had been ousted “while abusing the Constitution”.
Referring to the delay in elections of provincial assemblies, he said if the polls were not held within 90 days, then this book of the Constitution should be closed. “I have my fears that this will open the path of civil unrest, which we can’t afford in the given circumstances,” he argued.
Earlier, another PTI senator, Syed Shibli Faraz, said that there was anxiety and tension among the public as well as legislators, as the way shown by the Constitution was not being followed.
Attempts were underway to defer the polls against the dictates of the Constitution, he said and called for holding timely and free and fair elections “to preserve democracy and establish the rule of law”.
Criticising Punjab and KP officials for making a case for postponing the elections, he pointed out that all executive authorities under Article 220 of the Constitution were bound to assist the electoral body in discharging its duty of holding elections.
“The Election Commission has to fulfil its constitutional duty of holding timely elections to the provincial assemblies within the stipulated time period. Unfortunately, there is a civilian martial law in place in the country at present. However, we will not let this House or the Constitution be abused,” he said.
Earlier in his remarks, Senator Mushtaq Ahmad also lamented the addition of five cabinet members, claiming that Pakistan’s cabinet was now the largest in the world.
Published in Dawn, February 11th, 2023
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
CJP says remarks misreported, misconstrued on social media
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial's comments came while hearing PTI chief Imran Khan's petition on February 14
Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial on Tuesday said that his remarks were misreported and misconstrued on social media.
He made these observations while hearing a petition filed by the PTI chairman challenging the amendments made in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
“We have read your letter and appreciate your efforts in this regard,” the Chief Justice told the AG. The Chief Justice observed that whatever was reported on social media about his remarks was not only misconstrued and misstated but also reflected bias. “I am showing restraint on whatever is reported but the media friends should take the court’s restraint with respect as well,” the CJP remarked.
The Chief Justice recalled that the apex court verdict of 2019 mentions media control. “But I believe in mutual respect, not in media control,” the CJP added.
...
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1040824-cjp-says-remarks-misreported-misconstrued-on-social-media
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial's comments came while hearing PTI chief Imran Khan's petition on February 14
Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial on Tuesday said that his remarks were misreported and misconstrued on social media.
He made these observations while hearing a petition filed by the PTI chairman challenging the amendments made in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
“We have read your letter and appreciate your efforts in this regard,” the Chief Justice told the AG. The Chief Justice observed that whatever was reported on social media about his remarks was not only misconstrued and misstated but also reflected bias. “I am showing restraint on whatever is reported but the media friends should take the court’s restraint with respect as well,” the CJP remarked.
The Chief Justice recalled that the apex court verdict of 2019 mentions media control. “But I believe in mutual respect, not in media control,” the CJP added.
...
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1040824-cjp-says-remarks-misreported-misconstrued-on-social-media
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
“The Supreme Court is a constitutional institution, which is being maligned with audiotapes”, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked during hearing of former CCPO Lahore Ghulam Mehmood Dogar’s transfer case, ARY News reported on Wednesday.
“We will protect the constitutional institution with forgiving and restraint,” CJP Bandial said in the hearing. “These malicious audiotapes have no significance,” Justice Bandial further said.
“The election commission is a constitutional institution, and we will provide it protection,” CJP earlier said. “The election commission have mandate to conduct fair and transparent elections,” he further observed.
“We will only intervene when malicious intention found in conduct of free and fair elections,” Justice Bandial said.
It is to be mentioned that two purported audio leaks against a former CJP and an incumbent judge of the Supreme Court have recently surfaced.
An alleged audio of conversation between former Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar and PTI chairman Imran Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Tariq Raheem was leaked recently.
Justice (retired) Saqib Nisar said that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) was ‘targeting’ judiciary for personal gains.
Saqib Nisar had said Maryam Nawaz wants to achieve ‘specific gains’ by creating political chaos in the country.
Meanwhile, another purported audiotape came to surface was related to a conversation of sitting judge of the apex court Mr. Justice Ali Akbar Mazahir Naqvi.
“We will protect the constitutional institution with forgiving and restraint,” CJP Bandial said in the hearing. “These malicious audiotapes have no significance,” Justice Bandial further said.
“The election commission is a constitutional institution, and we will provide it protection,” CJP earlier said. “The election commission have mandate to conduct fair and transparent elections,” he further observed.
“We will only intervene when malicious intention found in conduct of free and fair elections,” Justice Bandial said.
It is to be mentioned that two purported audio leaks against a former CJP and an incumbent judge of the Supreme Court have recently surfaced.
An alleged audio of conversation between former Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar and PTI chairman Imran Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Tariq Raheem was leaked recently.
Justice (retired) Saqib Nisar said that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) was ‘targeting’ judiciary for personal gains.
Saqib Nisar had said Maryam Nawaz wants to achieve ‘specific gains’ by creating political chaos in the country.
Meanwhile, another purported audiotape came to surface was related to a conversation of sitting judge of the apex court Mr. Justice Ali Akbar Mazahir Naqvi.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court have called for revisiting the power of the “one-man show” enjoyed by the chief justice, saying that the country’s top court could not “be dependent on the solitary decision of one man”.
The two made the remarks in a detailed dissenting note — released on Monday hours after the SC took up the PTI’s plea challenging the postponement of elections in Punjab — for the top court’s March 1 verdict regarding holding elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the two provincial assemblies have been dissolved.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on February 22 took suo motu notice of the polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, saying that there appeared to be a “lack of clarity” on the matter.
Justice Bandial also constituted a nine-member bench — comprising himself, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah — to hear the case.
The CJP on February 27, however, split the larger bench into a five-member bench. The SC also issued a written order, which was dictated in the open court on Feb 23 when Justice Jamal Mandokhail objected to the initiation of the proceedings under Article 184(3).
Signed by nine judges, the written order of the bench stated that keeping in view the Feb 23 order, the additio*nal notes attached by four jud*ges, the CJP’s direction to add questions raised by Jus*tice Shah, Justice Afridi, Justice Mando*khail and Justice Minallah, as well as discussions/deliberations made in the anteroom of the apex court, the matter was referred back to the top judge.
In response, the CJP recon*s*ti*tuted the bench comprising himself, Justice Shah, Justice Akhtar, Justice Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar. Those who dissociated themselves from the hearing included Justice Ahsan, Justice Afridi, Justice Naqvi, and Justice Minallah.
On March 1, the SC, in a 3-2 verdict, directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consult with President Arif Alvi for polls in Punjab and Governor Ghulam Ali for elections in KP.
The majority judgement, given by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Mazhar, however, allowed the ECP to propose a poll date that deviates from the 90-day deadline by the “barest minimum”, in case of any practical difficulty.
Justice Mandokhail and Justice Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — dissented with the ruling. In a joint dissent note, the two top court judges said that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the CJP were “wholly unjustified”, besides being initiated with “undue haste”.
In the 28-page detailed dissenting note, which was released on Monday, the two judges said that the top court’s “original jurisdiction” under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was not only “‘discretionary’ but also ‘special’ and ‘extraordinary’, which is to be exercised ‘with circumspection’ only in ‘exceptional cases’ of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights that are considered ‘fit’ for being dealt with under this jurisdiction by the court”.
Article 184(3) of the Constitution sets out the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and enables it to assume jurisdiction in matters involving a question of “public importance” with reference to the “enforcement of any of the fundamental rights” of Pakistan’s citizens.
DAWN
The two made the remarks in a detailed dissenting note — released on Monday hours after the SC took up the PTI’s plea challenging the postponement of elections in Punjab — for the top court’s March 1 verdict regarding holding elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the two provincial assemblies have been dissolved.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on February 22 took suo motu notice of the polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, saying that there appeared to be a “lack of clarity” on the matter.
Justice Bandial also constituted a nine-member bench — comprising himself, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah — to hear the case.
The CJP on February 27, however, split the larger bench into a five-member bench. The SC also issued a written order, which was dictated in the open court on Feb 23 when Justice Jamal Mandokhail objected to the initiation of the proceedings under Article 184(3).
Signed by nine judges, the written order of the bench stated that keeping in view the Feb 23 order, the additio*nal notes attached by four jud*ges, the CJP’s direction to add questions raised by Jus*tice Shah, Justice Afridi, Justice Mando*khail and Justice Minallah, as well as discussions/deliberations made in the anteroom of the apex court, the matter was referred back to the top judge.
In response, the CJP recon*s*ti*tuted the bench comprising himself, Justice Shah, Justice Akhtar, Justice Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar. Those who dissociated themselves from the hearing included Justice Ahsan, Justice Afridi, Justice Naqvi, and Justice Minallah.
On March 1, the SC, in a 3-2 verdict, directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consult with President Arif Alvi for polls in Punjab and Governor Ghulam Ali for elections in KP.
The majority judgement, given by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Mazhar, however, allowed the ECP to propose a poll date that deviates from the 90-day deadline by the “barest minimum”, in case of any practical difficulty.
Justice Mandokhail and Justice Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — dissented with the ruling. In a joint dissent note, the two top court judges said that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the CJP were “wholly unjustified”, besides being initiated with “undue haste”.
In the 28-page detailed dissenting note, which was released on Monday, the two judges said that the top court’s “original jurisdiction” under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was not only “‘discretionary’ but also ‘special’ and ‘extraordinary’, which is to be exercised ‘with circumspection’ only in ‘exceptional cases’ of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights that are considered ‘fit’ for being dealt with under this jurisdiction by the court”.
Article 184(3) of the Constitution sets out the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and enables it to assume jurisdiction in matters involving a question of “public importance” with reference to the “enforcement of any of the fundamental rights” of Pakistan’s citizens.
DAWN
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,647
These 2 judges along with Isa are crooked as the day is long. Maybe when Isa comes to power they can revisit the powers
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
The federal cabinet approved the draft of legislation on Tuesday seeking to curtail the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, leaving the decision of taking up any suo motu case to the three senior-most judges of the apex court.
The bill, a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune, ensures that "every cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by the Committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior most judges, in order of seniority,"
The draft of the bill, titled 'The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023', adds that the decisions of such a committee shall be by majority.
Regarding suo moto powers, the draft states that any matter invoking exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) shall be first placed before the committee of three senior-most judges.
“..If the Committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the Committee, for adjudication of the matter,” it adds.
The legislation also allows appeals within 30 days of a verdict being issued on a suo motu case and enforces that a bench be constituted to hear such an appeal within 14 days.
“An appeal shall lie within thirty days from a final order of a bench of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution to a larger bench of the Supreme Court and such appeal shall, for hearing, be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days,” read the draft.
Meanwhile, sources told The Express Tribune that a meeting of the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Law and Justice has been summoned for tomorrow (Wednesday) at 10pm. The committee is expected to approve the judicial reforms amendment bill passed by the federal cabinet, after which the bill will be presented in the National Assembly.
The development comes amid a growing debate in the country over the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute benches, 'fix' cases, and initiate public interest proceedings under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
Express Tribune
The bill, a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune, ensures that "every cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by the Committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior most judges, in order of seniority,"
The draft of the bill, titled 'The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023', adds that the decisions of such a committee shall be by majority.
Regarding suo moto powers, the draft states that any matter invoking exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) shall be first placed before the committee of three senior-most judges.
“..If the Committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the Committee, for adjudication of the matter,” it adds.
The legislation also allows appeals within 30 days of a verdict being issued on a suo motu case and enforces that a bench be constituted to hear such an appeal within 14 days.
“An appeal shall lie within thirty days from a final order of a bench of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution to a larger bench of the Supreme Court and such appeal shall, for hearing, be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days,” read the draft.
Meanwhile, sources told The Express Tribune that a meeting of the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Law and Justice has been summoned for tomorrow (Wednesday) at 10pm. The committee is expected to approve the judicial reforms amendment bill passed by the federal cabinet, after which the bill will be presented in the National Assembly.
The development comes amid a growing debate in the country over the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute benches, 'fix' cases, and initiate public interest proceedings under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
Express Tribune
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
Shebaz Sharif claims judiciary causing political instability
ISLAMABAD: As the government attempted to curb the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the National Assembly on Tuesday passed a resolution asking the Supreme Court (SC) to “refrain from interfering in political and administrative affairs” and called for the formation of a full SC bench to hear constitutional matters.
Through the resolution, read out by Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb in the rare presence of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the lower house of parliament called for “non-interference” in the matters related to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), besides demanding same-day elections in the country under impartial caretaker set-up in line with Article 224 of the Constitution.
“This house believes that an unnecessary intrusion of the judiciary in the political matters is the main cause of political instability,” said the resolution, adding, “The House endorses the decision of four judges of the apex court in the suo motu case relating to holding elections and supports their opinion, hoping that the SC would refrain from meddling into the political and administrative matters of the country.”
It further said: “No infringement to be made to the constitutional rights of the ECP and the Commission should be allowed to hold elections as per its prerogative under favourable conditions.”
The bill and the resolution were tabled by the government in the assembly after the lawmakers during one-sided proceedings delivered fiery speeches in which they lambasted the superior court over “judicial activism” and the formerly ruling PTI for allegedly trying to spread anarchy in the country.
Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf facilitated the government by giving ample time to the members to speak in an apparent effort to drag the session, which continued till night, in order to provide time for the federal cabinet to discuss and approve the draft of the proposed law.
The debate was formally initiated by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif after the suspension of the 65-point private member’s day agenda.
Mr Sharif hit out at the judiciary and Imran Khan and asked the parliamentarians “to decide if they want to continue with the prevailing law of the jungle in the country or legislate for upholding the rule of law”. He also made talks with Mr Khan conditional to the latter’s public apology for his past action.
The prime minister termed as “a ray of hope the 4-3 decision” of judges in a suo motu case regarding elections that dismissed the proceedings contending that the CJP did not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the respective judges.
He also urged the CJP to carry out the forensic analysis of the audio of a sitting judge in which he could be heard discussing political matters.
After Mr Sharif, every member who took the floor castigated the judiciary and the PTI and called for establishing parliament’s supremacy.
The only defence of Mr Khan came from PTI MNA Saleh Shah. Saira Bano of the GDA stated that her party would not support the government’s move to clip the SC’s powers.
Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2023
ISLAMABAD: As the government attempted to curb the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the National Assembly on Tuesday passed a resolution asking the Supreme Court (SC) to “refrain from interfering in political and administrative affairs” and called for the formation of a full SC bench to hear constitutional matters.
Through the resolution, read out by Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb in the rare presence of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the lower house of parliament called for “non-interference” in the matters related to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), besides demanding same-day elections in the country under impartial caretaker set-up in line with Article 224 of the Constitution.
“This house believes that an unnecessary intrusion of the judiciary in the political matters is the main cause of political instability,” said the resolution, adding, “The House endorses the decision of four judges of the apex court in the suo motu case relating to holding elections and supports their opinion, hoping that the SC would refrain from meddling into the political and administrative matters of the country.”
It further said: “No infringement to be made to the constitutional rights of the ECP and the Commission should be allowed to hold elections as per its prerogative under favourable conditions.”
The bill and the resolution were tabled by the government in the assembly after the lawmakers during one-sided proceedings delivered fiery speeches in which they lambasted the superior court over “judicial activism” and the formerly ruling PTI for allegedly trying to spread anarchy in the country.
Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf facilitated the government by giving ample time to the members to speak in an apparent effort to drag the session, which continued till night, in order to provide time for the federal cabinet to discuss and approve the draft of the proposed law.
The debate was formally initiated by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif after the suspension of the 65-point private member’s day agenda.
Mr Sharif hit out at the judiciary and Imran Khan and asked the parliamentarians “to decide if they want to continue with the prevailing law of the jungle in the country or legislate for upholding the rule of law”. He also made talks with Mr Khan conditional to the latter’s public apology for his past action.
The prime minister termed as “a ray of hope the 4-3 decision” of judges in a suo motu case regarding elections that dismissed the proceedings contending that the CJP did not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the respective judges.
He also urged the CJP to carry out the forensic analysis of the audio of a sitting judge in which he could be heard discussing political matters.
After Mr Sharif, every member who took the floor castigated the judiciary and the PTI and called for establishing parliament’s supremacy.
The only defence of Mr Khan came from PTI MNA Saleh Shah. Saira Bano of the GDA stated that her party would not support the government’s move to clip the SC’s powers.
Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2023
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
While i have my differences with PTI, but they are absolutely right with regards that election should be held under 90 days of dissolving the assemblies. Constitution dictates this, and if you violate the constitution the supreme court will obviously intervene.
Shebaz Sharif has made a very stupid statement and it seems as if he has no idea how the govt works. In democracy you have a balance where each branch makes sure no one else exceeds there powers.
You cannot whine about judiciary intervening when you violate the constitution. PTI asked a simple question to the supreme court who gave a clear answer to it.
Shebaz Sharif has made a very stupid statement and it seems as if he has no idea how the govt works. In democracy you have a balance where each branch makes sure no one else exceeds there powers.
You cannot whine about judiciary intervening when you violate the constitution. PTI asked a simple question to the supreme court who gave a clear answer to it.
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
Nothing democratic about this government. They are in survival mode and will use every trick they can to hold on to their power.
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
IMRAN KHAN ASKS LAWYERS TO THWART ATTEMPTS FOR DIVIDING JUDICIARY
Former premier and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan has asked lawyers to be united for thwarting attempts to divide the judiciary, ARY News reported on Tuesday.
While addressing PTI workers and supporters via video link, Imran Khan appealed to the legal fraternity to attend the lawyers’ convention being organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). He alleged that attempts are being made to divide the judiciary.
He said that the time has arrived to choose the right path. He added if the government manhandled Barrister Hassaan Niazi then it could have happened to anyone else.
Khan said that the rulers are increasing hatred among the people by threatening everyone who were resisting their wrongdoings. He reiterated that fair and free elections are the only solution to end the crisis in the country.
...
https://arynews.tv/imran-khan-asks-lawyers-to-thwart-attempts-for-dividing-judiciary/
Former premier and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan has asked lawyers to be united for thwarting attempts to divide the judiciary, ARY News reported on Tuesday.
While addressing PTI workers and supporters via video link, Imran Khan appealed to the legal fraternity to attend the lawyers’ convention being organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). He alleged that attempts are being made to divide the judiciary.
He said that the time has arrived to choose the right path. He added if the government manhandled Barrister Hassaan Niazi then it could have happened to anyone else.
Khan said that the rulers are increasing hatred among the people by threatening everyone who were resisting their wrongdoings. He reiterated that fair and free elections are the only solution to end the crisis in the country.
...
https://arynews.tv/imran-khan-asks-lawyers-to-thwart-attempts-for-dividing-judiciary/
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
shebaz shareef did hold a valid point that the supreme court judge should not be taking suo moto, decisions should not be taken by only one man, and constitutional crisis should be judged by a bench which is consistent. Justice Isa is a senior judge and about to become cheif justice yet he wasnt part of the bench. So yes issues are there and Natinal Assembly needs to fix them.
However, Shebaz Shareef is only interested in delaying elections and is coming up with excuses to damage the credibility of the courts.
Its funny how the dissenting remarks of two judges has caused a chaos. Those remarks left by them on the power of supreme court and changing the benches at will are absolutely valid. Kudos to the two judges for writing those notes
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
Where were these judges when suo moto was being taken up at mid night of April 2. The three you're referring to only speak when their masters tell them to.
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
FOr gods sake can you stop there is whereaboutism?
April 2nd issue was something else, the country was in a constitutional crises where a speaker and the PM was blocking the National aseembly form doing its job.
here you have ECP not conducting the elections.
So you believe that full benches should not exist? Benches should be changed and one judge of the supreme court decidde constitutional matters?
Be careful with your answer, because next CJ is Isa who PTI went all out against where they were on wtich hunt to show he was corrupt when he was not and threw every record in their faces.
Than again, you guys are the same people that defended Bajwas extention around here, and than we know what happened few years later
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
FOr gods sake can you stop there is whereaboutism?
April 2nd issue was something else, the country was in a constitutional crises where a speaker and the PM was blocking the National aseembly form doing its job.
here you have ECP not conducting the elections.
So you believe that full benches should not exist? Benches should be changed and one judge of the supreme court decidde constitutional matters?
Be careful with your answer, because next CJ is Isa who PTI went all out against where they were on wtich hunt to show he was corrupt when he was not and threw every record in their faces.
Than again, you guys are the same people that defended Bajwas extention around here, and than we know what happened few years later
The issue at hand sir is curbing the Chief Justice's power to take 'suo moto' action. Why is this coming up now? Hasn't the CJP taken suo moto action in the past and made benches as he wished. It has always been the case. And if Isa is going to carry an agenda of revenge then he wouldn't be fit to be a judge as he could be making biased decisions.
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
so you are saying judges should be able to take sou moto? Gradual improvement is not needed in the judiciary process?
Whats the whole point of NA than if the likes of you think laws should not be updated with time.
But than again, PTI supports those things that suit them better at the expense of ruining the country
Last edited:
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
It's a bogus NA, the only national party in the country is not even a part of this. If they want a full bench, why not a full Parliament to make this decision? Oh is it because they're trying to jack the constitution and running away from elections and they know they won't be back legitimately. The election issue is for Punjab, what's the need for National Assembly to intervene in a Provincial matter?
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
how is it a bogus NA? PTI themselves decided to resign from NA. its their fault. Maybe they should had sat on the opposition benches and accepted the VONC. They did not and have been paying the price for it.
Full parliament? Bro, plz read this
LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE
The Bill relating to the Federal Legislative List can be originated in either House. If the House passed the Bill through majority vote, it shall be transmitted to the other House. If the other House passes it witdout amendment, it shall be presented to the President for assent.
https://na.gov.pk/en/content.php?id...relating to the,be originated in either House.
National assembly hasn't dissolved, only pti was foolish enough to leave, but national assembly still stands.
How has national assembly intervened in provincial matter? The NA is discussing the supreme court judges power, how is that a provincial matter?
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023, which aims to deprive the office of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity.
The bill was presented by Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar.
PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, while addressing the law minister, termed the initiative “too little and too late”, and said that it should be called a “judges empowerment” bill.
When Tarar spoke, he said “it is being said that a constitutional amendment should be made. I want them to know there is no need for constitutional amendment.
“They should go and read Article 191 of the Constitution, which empowers the Assembly to legislate. The Supreme Court also made their rules according to the Constitution and law since 1980 and it is written on the preamble as well.”
He said Pakistan has six bar councils and “all of them saluted the House and the law for tabling the bill”.
North Waziristan MNA Mohsin Dawar introduced amendments which were accepted.
Tarar also acknowledged Bilawal’s “too little, too late” remarks but said he believed “there is a right time for everything” and the government demonstrated restraint “until a voice came from within the courts”.
Shortly after the bill was passed, the session was adjourned.
Earlier in the day, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice approved the cabinet’s proposed amendments.
The bill — called “Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023” — cleared the panel with a few additional amendments. The panel session was chaired by PML-N MNA Bashir Mehmood Virk.
Additional amendments included the right to appeal against the suo motu verdicts taken up to 30 days before the passing of the Lawyers’ Protection Act were included in the bill along with the amendment that any case that involves interpreting the Constitution will not have a bench with fewer than five judges.
Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, Minister of State for Law and Justice Shahadat Awan, PML-N’s Mohsin Ranjha and MNA Ramesh Kumar Vankwani were also among those attending the meeting today.
Tarar laments ‘imprudent use’ of suo-motu power
In the opening remarks of the meeting, Tarar lamented: “For the past year or so, two senior Supreme Court judges have not been seen [included] in any important bench. This should not happen.”
Saying that suo motu authority was used as a “one-man show”, Tarar clarified: “We have seen from every angle that there is no need for a constitutional amendment for this.”
He further said, “Unfortunately, there has not been a full court session of the Supreme Court for the past three years. It is the federal government’s duty to fill the vacuum through legislation.”
The minister added that the government did not want to make such a law that can be challenged later on. “This was an old demand of the stakeholders, upon which legislation is being enacted now,” he said.
Tarar asserted: “Not having the right to appeal against the decision of suo motu is against fundamental rights. To obtain the services of a lawyer of one’s own choice is also everyone’s right.”
He defended the government’s move saying that when “voices from within the Supreme Court also arose, the decision of legislation was taken”.
Virk, the standing committee’s chairman, then asked: “Is there anything in this bill that is against the Constitution?”
At this, PPP MNA Syeda Nafeesa Shah responded: “Parliament members are unanimous but there are some voices arising from outside Parliament. The legislation’s timing is being objected upon. Some people are saying that Article 184(3) [of the Constitution] will need to be amended.”
Detailing the use of suo motu powers, Tarar said: “Article 184(3) was used imprudently. [Former CJP] Iftikhar Chaudhry used the suo motu notice [powers] imprudently.
“After Iftikhar Chaudhry, three chief justices [of Pakistan] did not use this authority. Though, [former CJP] Mian Saqib Nisar exceeded limits.”
At one point during the session, PTI’s Vankwani said that there is an impression that the government is “bulldozing matters” by passing the bill.
He suggested that it would be better to “include the Supreme Court in the process” to which Tarar responded that the apex court had “done nothing on the matter in so many years”.
Responding to Vankwani’s suggestion of taking the apex court’s input on the matter, PML-N’s Virk responded: “Should permission be sought from the cause of the illness?”
Ranjha then said: “Legislation is parliament’s duty [while] the judiciary’s duty is to interpret the law and the Constitution.
“The Parliament should do its job and the Supreme Court should do its own,” he added.
Ranjha further said that “no such thing is being done in which we are crossing a line”. PPP’s Qamar then said, “If the intention is not well, then the right to appeal [the suo motu notice] can be sabotaged.”
The law minister then suggested changing the right to hear an appeal against a suo motu notice to five judges instead of three.
At one point during the session, Ranjha demanded that the act be implemented retroactively, at which PPP MNA Syed Naveed Qamar remarked: “Do not ask for this. There will be allegations that this legislation is being done to provide relief to Nawaz Sharif.”
Subsequently, the amendment to appeal against the suo motu verdicts taken up to 30 days before the passing of the Lawyers’ Protection Act was included in the bill along with the amendment that any case on interpreting the Constitution will not have a bench consisting of less than five judges.
The bill seeking the amendment was then approved by the standing committee, after which Tarar said that the Supreme Court Bar Association is of the view that Article 184(3) of the Constitution should be amended as well.
DAWN
The bill was presented by Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar.
PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, while addressing the law minister, termed the initiative “too little and too late”, and said that it should be called a “judges empowerment” bill.
When Tarar spoke, he said “it is being said that a constitutional amendment should be made. I want them to know there is no need for constitutional amendment.
“They should go and read Article 191 of the Constitution, which empowers the Assembly to legislate. The Supreme Court also made their rules according to the Constitution and law since 1980 and it is written on the preamble as well.”
He said Pakistan has six bar councils and “all of them saluted the House and the law for tabling the bill”.
North Waziristan MNA Mohsin Dawar introduced amendments which were accepted.
Tarar also acknowledged Bilawal’s “too little, too late” remarks but said he believed “there is a right time for everything” and the government demonstrated restraint “until a voice came from within the courts”.
Shortly after the bill was passed, the session was adjourned.
Earlier in the day, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice approved the cabinet’s proposed amendments.
The bill — called “Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023” — cleared the panel with a few additional amendments. The panel session was chaired by PML-N MNA Bashir Mehmood Virk.
Additional amendments included the right to appeal against the suo motu verdicts taken up to 30 days before the passing of the Lawyers’ Protection Act were included in the bill along with the amendment that any case that involves interpreting the Constitution will not have a bench with fewer than five judges.
Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, Minister of State for Law and Justice Shahadat Awan, PML-N’s Mohsin Ranjha and MNA Ramesh Kumar Vankwani were also among those attending the meeting today.
Tarar laments ‘imprudent use’ of suo-motu power
In the opening remarks of the meeting, Tarar lamented: “For the past year or so, two senior Supreme Court judges have not been seen [included] in any important bench. This should not happen.”
Saying that suo motu authority was used as a “one-man show”, Tarar clarified: “We have seen from every angle that there is no need for a constitutional amendment for this.”
He further said, “Unfortunately, there has not been a full court session of the Supreme Court for the past three years. It is the federal government’s duty to fill the vacuum through legislation.”
The minister added that the government did not want to make such a law that can be challenged later on. “This was an old demand of the stakeholders, upon which legislation is being enacted now,” he said.
Tarar asserted: “Not having the right to appeal against the decision of suo motu is against fundamental rights. To obtain the services of a lawyer of one’s own choice is also everyone’s right.”
He defended the government’s move saying that when “voices from within the Supreme Court also arose, the decision of legislation was taken”.
Virk, the standing committee’s chairman, then asked: “Is there anything in this bill that is against the Constitution?”
At this, PPP MNA Syeda Nafeesa Shah responded: “Parliament members are unanimous but there are some voices arising from outside Parliament. The legislation’s timing is being objected upon. Some people are saying that Article 184(3) [of the Constitution] will need to be amended.”
Detailing the use of suo motu powers, Tarar said: “Article 184(3) was used imprudently. [Former CJP] Iftikhar Chaudhry used the suo motu notice [powers] imprudently.
“After Iftikhar Chaudhry, three chief justices [of Pakistan] did not use this authority. Though, [former CJP] Mian Saqib Nisar exceeded limits.”
At one point during the session, PTI’s Vankwani said that there is an impression that the government is “bulldozing matters” by passing the bill.
He suggested that it would be better to “include the Supreme Court in the process” to which Tarar responded that the apex court had “done nothing on the matter in so many years”.
Responding to Vankwani’s suggestion of taking the apex court’s input on the matter, PML-N’s Virk responded: “Should permission be sought from the cause of the illness?”
Ranjha then said: “Legislation is parliament’s duty [while] the judiciary’s duty is to interpret the law and the Constitution.
“The Parliament should do its job and the Supreme Court should do its own,” he added.
Ranjha further said that “no such thing is being done in which we are crossing a line”. PPP’s Qamar then said, “If the intention is not well, then the right to appeal [the suo motu notice] can be sabotaged.”
The law minister then suggested changing the right to hear an appeal against a suo motu notice to five judges instead of three.
At one point during the session, Ranjha demanded that the act be implemented retroactively, at which PPP MNA Syed Naveed Qamar remarked: “Do not ask for this. There will be allegations that this legislation is being done to provide relief to Nawaz Sharif.”
Subsequently, the amendment to appeal against the suo motu verdicts taken up to 30 days before the passing of the Lawyers’ Protection Act was included in the bill along with the amendment that any case on interpreting the Constitution will not have a bench consisting of less than five judges.
The bill seeking the amendment was then approved by the standing committee, after which Tarar said that the Supreme Court Bar Association is of the view that Article 184(3) of the Constitution should be amended as well.
DAWN
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
So tell me in which legislative procedure is a bill passed this hastily. Already passed by NA in a single sitting. The most pressing matters of the country are economy related but government wants to debate judiciary powers.
Seems like they had this attack on judiciary planned from well before. It's a bogus NA because there's no signs of anything democratic going on. Right now it's a gang of crooks running the show with thier yes men brown nosing. Anyone that dissents is attacked on all levels.
Khair, another day another battlefield for Khan. He'll emerge victorious here too. PDM life support will only last so long
Kashmirilion
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Runs
- 1,072
You have put a great arguement and you should expect nothing but mental gymnastics from the above poster. It's democratic when suits them only. The courts are making decisions against them so now the judiciary needs to adjusted to suit their needs. It's all a farce. If you read all the statements from PDM lifafas and politicians from 7th April last year all where celebrating the Constitution but today they are all attacking the chief justice and asking for his resignation. Hypocrisy is a plague!!!. By the way where was this poster last week or so when pti workers and social media team are being abducted and abused? It's pointless to debate them when they want just ignore. Bewal express has called out these guys many times they always run from the threads they don't have an arguement in and then create another when suits them.
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,780
Pakistan has become a joke. Everything about it is a joke right now. This legislation, it can easily be overturned if and when the time comes.
Nothing is permanent or absolute there.
Nothing is permanent or absolute there.
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
if i were you, i would be the last person to complain about hastily bills. PTI had 80+ bills passed in one day just to mess with pmln.
its not abogus NA, as its based on elected members. Just because you dont like doesnt make it bogus.
The bills PTI passed were to allow the nation to meet FATF requirements and exit the grey list. The army also ensured your beloved chors were forced to allow the bills to pass which is a good reminder that the army can be against these thieves in the future too.There is also a history of pmln bribing some judges and attacking the Supreme Court and only corrupt and criminally employed people consider them to be politicians.
Your criminal leaders who accepted NRO to sit in the parliament refused to allow the bills to pass as evidence of their corruption and treason was proven in courts and they were trying to pressure Imran Khan to allow them another NRO so they can continue to loot Pakistan as they are shameless traitors who have brought Pakistan to the brink.
Last edited by a moderator:
Major
Test Star
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Runs
- 36,163
- Post of the Week
- 7
FATF did not require for president ordinances to be passed. PTI couldn't pass bills lol they didnt even have the numbers for it, they got ordinances go through. FATF did not require 78 ordinances to be passed.
Zardari doesnt take permission from IK, Zardari is establishment, it is IK who fears from Zardari
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
President Dr Arif Alvi on Wednesday acknowledged that there was “some need to streamline” Supreme Court’s internal matters but questioned the timing as well as the manner of the government’s bid to curtail the chief justice’s power to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity among other things.
Earlier in the day, the National Assembly passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023’s passing after it was presented by Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar.
Regarding exercising the apex court’s original jurisdiction, the bill said that any matter invoking the use of Article 184(3) would first be placed before a Supreme Court committee comprising the CJP and two most senior judges.
“If the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the committee, for adjudication of the matter,” the bill reads.
DAWN
Earlier in the day, the National Assembly passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023’s passing after it was presented by Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar.
Regarding exercising the apex court’s original jurisdiction, the bill said that any matter invoking the use of Article 184(3) would first be placed before a Supreme Court committee comprising the CJP and two most senior judges.
“If the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the committee, for adjudication of the matter,” the bill reads.
DAWN
FATF did not require for president ordinances to be passed. PTI couldn't pass bills lol they didnt even have the numbers for it, they got ordinances go through. FATF did not require 78 ordinances to be passed.
Zardari doesnt take permission from IK, Zardari is establishment, it is IK who fears from Zardari
You are playing at semantics here to mislead. Whether you like it or not PTI got everything they needed for the good of the country to pass and there was nothing zardari and the London hiding fugitive could do about it.
The army orders ppp and pmln to vote the way they demand, as said “political parties” are criminals they do as told else their corruption will lead to their arrest and more.
Imran fears a man who killed his wife and tries to enforce his just passed son ( I hope I got the gender right) into politics? Try to make sense. I wonder why zardari ran to Dubai after verbally attacking the army if he is one of them lol.
Also, I suggest viewing the entire Imran Khan journey for last weekends jalsa from Zaman park to the Minar, so you can comprehend the overwhelming support he has. It will clarify why pmln chors had to murder over a 100 police officers in KPK to delay the elections.
Also, you are completely silent on pmlns history of physical, financial and verbal attacks on the judiciary and Supreme Court.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
The Senate of Pakistan on Thursday passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023 -- aimed at curbing the top judge’s suo moto powers in an individual capacity.
There were 60 votes in favour of the bill and 19 against it.
Speaking in the Senate, Law minister Azam Nazir Tarar - who had moved the bill - said that there are different attitudes towards running the institution.
"Under Article 191 of the Constitution, the Parliament can amend the Constitution and the Constitution says not to interfere unnecessarily with each other's boundaries," he furthered.
The law minister also said that now “all supreme court judges are equal”.
There were 60 votes in favour of the bill and 19 against it.
Speaking in the Senate, Law minister Azam Nazir Tarar - who had moved the bill - said that there are different attitudes towards running the institution.
"Under Article 191 of the Constitution, the Parliament can amend the Constitution and the Constitution says not to interfere unnecessarily with each other's boundaries," he furthered.
The law minister also said that now “all supreme court judges are equal”.
Savak
World Star
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 50,148
- Post of the Week
- 3
Its scary how the mafia unites for nefarious purposes and gets things done very rapidly when their survival depends on it.
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
NA continues to pick apart judiciary’s performance
• 38 posts of judges lying vacant, state minister says JCP not convened in a long time
• Lawmakers protest withdrawal of power subsidy to textile industry
ISLAMABAD: The performance and working of the judiciary came under scrutiny of the National Assembly for the second consecutive day when the house was informed that over 380,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court and all the five high courts of the country.
During the alternate private member’s day, the lawmakers also protested over the government’s move to withdraw subsidy on power tariff for the textile industry as per conditions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Both the issues came up under discussion during the Question Hour and lawmakers, who had lashed out at the judiciary during the sitting on Monday at the time of the passage of the controversial bill clipping the suo motu power of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), once again consumed significant time on discussing reasons for the huge backlog of cases in the country, causing problems to litigants and the masses.
...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1745088/na-continues-to-pick-apart-judiciarys-performance
• 38 posts of judges lying vacant, state minister says JCP not convened in a long time
• Lawmakers protest withdrawal of power subsidy to textile industry
ISLAMABAD: The performance and working of the judiciary came under scrutiny of the National Assembly for the second consecutive day when the house was informed that over 380,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court and all the five high courts of the country.
During the alternate private member’s day, the lawmakers also protested over the government’s move to withdraw subsidy on power tariff for the textile industry as per conditions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Both the issues came up under discussion during the Question Hour and lawmakers, who had lashed out at the judiciary during the sitting on Monday at the time of the passage of the controversial bill clipping the suo motu power of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), once again consumed significant time on discussing reasons for the huge backlog of cases in the country, causing problems to litigants and the masses.
...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1745088/na-continues-to-pick-apart-judiciarys-performance
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
ISLAMABAD: Despite the coalition government expressing its lack of confidence in the Supreme Court bench hearing the polls delay case, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has formed seven of them to hear cases in Islamabad next week.
On April 3, a top court special bench, comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, will hear the petition filed by the PTI against the delay in the elections in Punjab.
According to the cause list issued by the SC Registrar’s Office, seven benches will hear the cases at the Islamabad principal seat.
The first bench will comprise the CJP himself and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar; Justice Isa and Justice Yahya Afridi in the second one; the third bench will comprise Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah; Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi on the fourth one; the fifth bench will comprise Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Mandokhail; Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Mazahar Akbar Naqvi in the sixth one; and the seventh bench will comprise Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed.
Express Tribune
On April 3, a top court special bench, comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, will hear the petition filed by the PTI against the delay in the elections in Punjab.
According to the cause list issued by the SC Registrar’s Office, seven benches will hear the cases at the Islamabad principal seat.
The first bench will comprise the CJP himself and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar; Justice Isa and Justice Yahya Afridi in the second one; the third bench will comprise Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah; Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi on the fourth one; the fifth bench will comprise Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Mandokhail; Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Mazahar Akbar Naqvi in the sixth one; and the seventh bench will comprise Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed.
Express Tribune
Last edited by a moderator:
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
RANA SANAULLAH HINTS AT FILING REFERENCE AGAINST CJP, SC JUDGES
Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah on Saturday asserted that the government was considering filing a reference against three judges of Supreme Court (SC), including the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, who are hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition against delay in elections of Punjab Assembly, ARY News reported.
Speaking to an international media outlet, the interior minister said that the matter of the filing of a reference against three judges – CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar – “is under discussion but there has been no decision on it yet”.
Rana Sanaullah noted that a decision to file a reference could be taken since “these three respected judges have a long record of giving decisions against the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)”.
The minister – while recalling a verdict – said that not only the PML-N but every person, including retired judges and chief justices, had said the decision was wrong. “It appears that the three judges are bent on resolving this Punjab elections case themselves,” he added.
Referring to ‘shrinking’ of SC bench, Sanauallah said that a bench was made of nine judges and then seven remained, then five, then four and now three are left.
He noted that the three judges rejected the request for a full court bench and “refused to accept the stance of their fellow judges”.
...
https://arynews.tv/rana-sanaullah-hints-at-filing-reference-against-cjp-sc-judges/
Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah on Saturday asserted that the government was considering filing a reference against three judges of Supreme Court (SC), including the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, who are hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition against delay in elections of Punjab Assembly, ARY News reported.
Speaking to an international media outlet, the interior minister said that the matter of the filing of a reference against three judges – CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar – “is under discussion but there has been no decision on it yet”.
Rana Sanaullah noted that a decision to file a reference could be taken since “these three respected judges have a long record of giving decisions against the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)”.
The minister – while recalling a verdict – said that not only the PML-N but every person, including retired judges and chief justices, had said the decision was wrong. “It appears that the three judges are bent on resolving this Punjab elections case themselves,” he added.
Referring to ‘shrinking’ of SC bench, Sanauallah said that a bench was made of nine judges and then seven remained, then five, then four and now three are left.
He noted that the three judges rejected the request for a full court bench and “refused to accept the stance of their fellow judges”.
...
https://arynews.tv/rana-sanaullah-hints-at-filing-reference-against-cjp-sc-judges/
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
SC fighting back the pressure by summoning the secretary of finance and secretary of defence today
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Monday took exception to remarks made by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial during the Supreme Court hearing on the postponement of polls in Punjab.
For the past week, the top court has been hearing the PTI’s petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Assembly till October 8. Earlier today, the court reserved its verdict in the case.
During the hearing conducted on March 31, the CJP had made the following remarks: “Today, when you go to parliament, you find people addressing the parliament who were till yesterday in captivity, imprisoned, declared traitors. They are now talking over there, and being respected because they are representatives of the people.”
The remarks had come a day after a bill aimed at clipping powers of the CJP and giving the right to appeal in all suo motu cases with retrospective effect sailed through the Senate without being sent to the relevant standing committee. The bill, titled the ‘Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023’, seeks to take away the discretionary powers of the CJP to take suo motu notice, form benches and allocate cases in an individual capacity.
Addressing the CJP’s remarks on the floor of the National Assembly, the premier said that Pakistan’s history was rife with examples of individuals serving prison sentences for having a particular stance or point of view.
“To serve a prison sentence in a criminal case, in a just society, at the hands of a fair judge is a matter of dishonour,” he said.
However, the PTI government headed by Imran Khan was consumed with putting opposition leaders behind bars, Shehbaz said, adding that he was also among the politicians who were jailed during the previous government.
“Imran sent me to jail not once, but twice. He was fully prepared to send me to jail for a third time.”
The prime minister also recounted the various legal proceedings he had to face during the PTI government’s tenure. He also noted that he was granted bail by different courts.
“It is God’s grace that I was released on merit and that I am here today. My crime was that I […] fully raised my voice against the government’s wrongdoings. But this was not acceptable to Imran who considered us a thorn in his side,” the premier said.
Referring to the CJP’s remarks, PM Shehbaz asked: “Is it a crime that after having successfully fought my case in the high courts, a decision is then made based on merit? Is this a matter of respect and pride or shame? […] is it a matter of shame or respect that I am present in this House today and can speak with my head held high?”
PM Shehbaz said that the CJP had stated that those who had served prison terms in the past were now making speeches in parliament but questioned if he would say anything about the “baseless cases” against the former opposition.
“I want to ask the chief justice, that a judge against whom there have been serious allegations, what message do you want to send to the nation by having him sit alongside you?” the premier asked without taking any names.
The premier said that lawmakers who had secured bail in “baseless cases” had the right to represent the aspirations of the people who had elected them.
“It is not a crime that we have come here after serving prison sentences and obtaining bail on merit. But you have a person, against whom there have been serious allegations of corruption, sitting alongside you.”
The prime minister said that as an elected representative, he would first look at himself before saying anything, adding that this principle “applies to everyone”.
The premier wished that the CJP would have instead talked about the UK’s National Crime Agency’s investigation against him wherein it had found no evidence of any criminal activities or the apology issued by the Daily Mail after it accused the premier of “stealing British foreign aid money”.
“He (CJP Bandial) did not remember all of this but he remembered that I was making a speech after serving a prison sentence. This double standard can not continue.”
During his speech, the premier also said that the entire coalition government had expressed a lack of confidence in the three-member SC bench hearing the PTI’s plea against postponement of polls.
DAWN
For the past week, the top court has been hearing the PTI’s petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Assembly till October 8. Earlier today, the court reserved its verdict in the case.
During the hearing conducted on March 31, the CJP had made the following remarks: “Today, when you go to parliament, you find people addressing the parliament who were till yesterday in captivity, imprisoned, declared traitors. They are now talking over there, and being respected because they are representatives of the people.”
The remarks had come a day after a bill aimed at clipping powers of the CJP and giving the right to appeal in all suo motu cases with retrospective effect sailed through the Senate without being sent to the relevant standing committee. The bill, titled the ‘Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023’, seeks to take away the discretionary powers of the CJP to take suo motu notice, form benches and allocate cases in an individual capacity.
Addressing the CJP’s remarks on the floor of the National Assembly, the premier said that Pakistan’s history was rife with examples of individuals serving prison sentences for having a particular stance or point of view.
“To serve a prison sentence in a criminal case, in a just society, at the hands of a fair judge is a matter of dishonour,” he said.
However, the PTI government headed by Imran Khan was consumed with putting opposition leaders behind bars, Shehbaz said, adding that he was also among the politicians who were jailed during the previous government.
“Imran sent me to jail not once, but twice. He was fully prepared to send me to jail for a third time.”
The prime minister also recounted the various legal proceedings he had to face during the PTI government’s tenure. He also noted that he was granted bail by different courts.
“It is God’s grace that I was released on merit and that I am here today. My crime was that I […] fully raised my voice against the government’s wrongdoings. But this was not acceptable to Imran who considered us a thorn in his side,” the premier said.
Referring to the CJP’s remarks, PM Shehbaz asked: “Is it a crime that after having successfully fought my case in the high courts, a decision is then made based on merit? Is this a matter of respect and pride or shame? […] is it a matter of shame or respect that I am present in this House today and can speak with my head held high?”
PM Shehbaz said that the CJP had stated that those who had served prison terms in the past were now making speeches in parliament but questioned if he would say anything about the “baseless cases” against the former opposition.
“I want to ask the chief justice, that a judge against whom there have been serious allegations, what message do you want to send to the nation by having him sit alongside you?” the premier asked without taking any names.
The premier said that lawmakers who had secured bail in “baseless cases” had the right to represent the aspirations of the people who had elected them.
“It is not a crime that we have come here after serving prison sentences and obtaining bail on merit. But you have a person, against whom there have been serious allegations of corruption, sitting alongside you.”
The prime minister said that as an elected representative, he would first look at himself before saying anything, adding that this principle “applies to everyone”.
The premier wished that the CJP would have instead talked about the UK’s National Crime Agency’s investigation against him wherein it had found no evidence of any criminal activities or the apology issued by the Daily Mail after it accused the premier of “stealing British foreign aid money”.
“He (CJP Bandial) did not remember all of this but he remembered that I was making a speech after serving a prison sentence. This double standard can not continue.”
During his speech, the premier also said that the entire coalition government had expressed a lack of confidence in the three-member SC bench hearing the PTI’s plea against postponement of polls.
DAWN
Savak
World Star
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 50,148
- Post of the Week
- 3
Qazi Faez Isa is doing everything he can to facilitate the PDM and to usurp the current CJ of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Amid a growing standoff with the judiciary, the government has called on Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial to step down because his position has become controversial.
The demand, made by Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb after a judicial note from Justice Athar Minallah was made public on Friday, was also echoed by PML-N supreme leader Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam.
Meanwhile, a complaint was filed against the CJP before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for ‘misconduct’, seeking a probe into the constitution of a bench for suo motu proceedings on Punjab and Khyber Pakht*unkhwa elections.
Addressing a news conference in Islamabad, Ms Aurangzeb said: “When there was no petition, questions arise as to why the bench was formed and why a decision was made.”
Four members of the SC bench wanted that a full-court bench proceed in the matter, she said, adding that political parties, too, were seeking a full-court bench so that the decision would be acceptable to people.
The minister said the CJP’s suo motu notice had been ‘dismissed’ by most members of the bench, yet a three-member bench was formed.
“Why was a bench formed on a petition which was dismissed and how can a decision be given on a petition which does not exist?”
She said political parties did not shy away from elections, but this was no longer just an election issue, rather a matter of ‘bench fixing’.
Ms Aurangzeb blamed the court’s handling of the election matter for creating a ‘constitutional crisis’, saying that elections should be held at the same time across the country after the completion of the assemblies’ constitutional tenure, and not on the whims of an individual.
Sharifs’ demand
Separately, PML-N chief organiser Maryam Nawaz Sharif echoed the demand that CJP Bandial should resign because “his tilt towards” her rival party, the PTI, was ‘glaring’.
In a couple of messages posted on Twitter, the PML-N chief organiser alleged that the top judge had flagrantly violated the law and Constitution to favour Imran Khan and the PTI.
“This blatant abuse of authority has led to an unprecedented revolt-like situation in the [Supreme Court]. Judges of impeccable repute have raised serious questions on CJP’s conduct & bias,” she wrote, claiming that no chief justice had ever been accused of such misconduct.
Her father, PML-N supreme leader Nawaz Sharif, also tweeted on the issue, saying that courts were meant to rescue nations from crises, not push them further into quagmire.
“Who knows what privilege the chief justice has employed to impose a minority opinion on a majority decision. Rather than causing further damage, a chief justice who has insulted his position and the constitution by further PTI’s agenda should immediately resign.”
Complaint against CJP
Filed by a private citizen, the complaint against CJP Bandial seeks a probe into the initiation of suo motu proceedings on KP, Punjab elections and constitution of a bench for the purpose.
Moved by Advocate Raja Sibtain Khan, the complaint claims that the CJP allegedly created a grouping within the SC by “keeping four judges in his basket”. By doing so, the complaint alleged, he was guilty of misconduct by luring those judges for his own personal motives and benefits and such practices were unknown to the framework of the Constitution and its dispensation, the complaint alleged.
The complaint said the CJP was allegedly guilty of misconduct and therefore should be removed from office immediately. While the greatest strength of citizens in constitutional dispensation rests with apex judicial institution, backed up by public confidence and trust of the people, the same was being diminished manifold due to assumption of jurisdiction by the incumbent CJP, the complaint alleged.
This warrants a serious probe under Article 209(5)(b) of the Constitution as the incumbent CJP allegedly committed ‘gross misconduct’ by being guilty of compromising his oath, relevant constitutional provisions and the dictum on the subject settled by the Supreme Court, according to the complaint.
The CJP allegedly constituted a bench according to the grouping so that he might be able to score a majority order in suo motu case on the KP, Punjab elections and other two constitutional petitions, the complaint alleged. This was not only a violation of Article 10-A, but also jeopardised the constitutional and fundamental rights of the people, it added.
Nasir Iqbal in Islamabad also contributed to this report
Published in Dawn, April 8th, 2023
The demand, made by Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb after a judicial note from Justice Athar Minallah was made public on Friday, was also echoed by PML-N supreme leader Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam.
Meanwhile, a complaint was filed against the CJP before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for ‘misconduct’, seeking a probe into the constitution of a bench for suo motu proceedings on Punjab and Khyber Pakht*unkhwa elections.
Addressing a news conference in Islamabad, Ms Aurangzeb said: “When there was no petition, questions arise as to why the bench was formed and why a decision was made.”
Four members of the SC bench wanted that a full-court bench proceed in the matter, she said, adding that political parties, too, were seeking a full-court bench so that the decision would be acceptable to people.
The minister said the CJP’s suo motu notice had been ‘dismissed’ by most members of the bench, yet a three-member bench was formed.
“Why was a bench formed on a petition which was dismissed and how can a decision be given on a petition which does not exist?”
She said political parties did not shy away from elections, but this was no longer just an election issue, rather a matter of ‘bench fixing’.
Ms Aurangzeb blamed the court’s handling of the election matter for creating a ‘constitutional crisis’, saying that elections should be held at the same time across the country after the completion of the assemblies’ constitutional tenure, and not on the whims of an individual.
Sharifs’ demand
Separately, PML-N chief organiser Maryam Nawaz Sharif echoed the demand that CJP Bandial should resign because “his tilt towards” her rival party, the PTI, was ‘glaring’.
In a couple of messages posted on Twitter, the PML-N chief organiser alleged that the top judge had flagrantly violated the law and Constitution to favour Imran Khan and the PTI.
“This blatant abuse of authority has led to an unprecedented revolt-like situation in the [Supreme Court]. Judges of impeccable repute have raised serious questions on CJP’s conduct & bias,” she wrote, claiming that no chief justice had ever been accused of such misconduct.
Her father, PML-N supreme leader Nawaz Sharif, also tweeted on the issue, saying that courts were meant to rescue nations from crises, not push them further into quagmire.
“Who knows what privilege the chief justice has employed to impose a minority opinion on a majority decision. Rather than causing further damage, a chief justice who has insulted his position and the constitution by further PTI’s agenda should immediately resign.”
Complaint against CJP
Filed by a private citizen, the complaint against CJP Bandial seeks a probe into the initiation of suo motu proceedings on KP, Punjab elections and constitution of a bench for the purpose.
Moved by Advocate Raja Sibtain Khan, the complaint claims that the CJP allegedly created a grouping within the SC by “keeping four judges in his basket”. By doing so, the complaint alleged, he was guilty of misconduct by luring those judges for his own personal motives and benefits and such practices were unknown to the framework of the Constitution and its dispensation, the complaint alleged.
The complaint said the CJP was allegedly guilty of misconduct and therefore should be removed from office immediately. While the greatest strength of citizens in constitutional dispensation rests with apex judicial institution, backed up by public confidence and trust of the people, the same was being diminished manifold due to assumption of jurisdiction by the incumbent CJP, the complaint alleged.
This warrants a serious probe under Article 209(5)(b) of the Constitution as the incumbent CJP allegedly committed ‘gross misconduct’ by being guilty of compromising his oath, relevant constitutional provisions and the dictum on the subject settled by the Supreme Court, according to the complaint.
The CJP allegedly constituted a bench according to the grouping so that he might be able to score a majority order in suo motu case on the KP, Punjab elections and other two constitutional petitions, the complaint alleged. This was not only a violation of Article 10-A, but also jeopardised the constitutional and fundamental rights of the people, it added.
Nasir Iqbal in Islamabad also contributed to this report
Published in Dawn, April 8th, 2023
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
President Arif Alvi on Saturday returned the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023 limiting the chief justice’s suo motu powers in an individual capacity, ARY News reported.
The president returned the bill for reconsideration to the parliment as per the provisions of the Article 75 of the Constitution days after it was sent to him for approval after it sailed through the National Assembly and Senate amid noisy protests by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) legislators.
The bill was moved by Federal Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar and adopted by a majority vote of 60-19.
The president returned the bill for reconsideration to the parliment as per the provisions of the Article 75 of the Constitution days after it was sent to him for approval after it sailed through the National Assembly and Senate amid noisy protests by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) legislators.
The bill was moved by Federal Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar and adopted by a majority vote of 60-19.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Saturday criticised President Arif Alvi for returning the Supreme Court bill – which aims to curtail the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) to take suo motu notice and constitute benches on his own – to Parliament after it was passed by the National Assembly, calling it "most unfortunate."
The federal cabinet had requested that the president immediately sign the bill, in an effort to resolve the country's constitutional and political crisis.
The bill, which has already been approved by the National Assembly and Senate, was passed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to order elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa within 90 days of their dissolution, among other such decisions.
The federal cabinet had requested that the president immediately sign the bill, in an effort to resolve the country's constitutional and political crisis.
The bill, which has already been approved by the National Assembly and Senate, was passed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to order elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa within 90 days of their dissolution, among other such decisions.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
A complaint against four Supreme Court (SC) judges including Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial was filed on Monday at the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) seeking their removal from office.
In addition to the CJP, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mazhar Ali Naqvi have been named in the complaint.
The complainant, Advocate Sardar Salman Ahmad Dogar, maintained that all four judges were guilty of misconduct and “consistently acted in violation of Article 209 of the constitution”.
“The respected CJ Bandial has engaged in judicial and administrative misconduct, as a head of the bench hearing a provincial election case, and as Chairperson of the SJC by refusing to probe allegations against the respected Justice Naqvi, and also by announcing in open court that he was giving a ‘silent message’, by including justice Naqvi on the bench with him, instead of initiating proceedings against the judge,” the application stated.
Advocate Dogar then went on to detail the allegations against Justice Naqvi referring to the series of controversial audio leaks involving former Punjab chief minister (CM) and new PTI member Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, the judge himself and his principal secretary as well as the audio clips relating to the case of CCPO Lahore.
Notably, the complaint pointed out that the latter case was pending before Justice Naqvi and Justice Ahsan when “in the same case, which being a service matter, both the said Justice started proceeding with regards to the elections to the Punjab Assembly” and later “referred the matters to the CJP for invocation of suo motu notice”.
Express Tribune
In addition to the CJP, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mazhar Ali Naqvi have been named in the complaint.
The complainant, Advocate Sardar Salman Ahmad Dogar, maintained that all four judges were guilty of misconduct and “consistently acted in violation of Article 209 of the constitution”.
“The respected CJ Bandial has engaged in judicial and administrative misconduct, as a head of the bench hearing a provincial election case, and as Chairperson of the SJC by refusing to probe allegations against the respected Justice Naqvi, and also by announcing in open court that he was giving a ‘silent message’, by including justice Naqvi on the bench with him, instead of initiating proceedings against the judge,” the application stated.
Advocate Dogar then went on to detail the allegations against Justice Naqvi referring to the series of controversial audio leaks involving former Punjab chief minister (CM) and new PTI member Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, the judge himself and his principal secretary as well as the audio clips relating to the case of CCPO Lahore.
Notably, the complaint pointed out that the latter case was pending before Justice Naqvi and Justice Ahsan when “in the same case, which being a service matter, both the said Justice started proceeding with regards to the elections to the Punjab Assembly” and later “referred the matters to the CJP for invocation of suo motu notice”.
Express Tribune
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
PARLIAMENT’S JOINT SITTING PASSES SC BILL CLIPPING CJP’S SUO MOTU POWER
Amid strong protests by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmakers, the Joint Sitting of Parliament on Monday passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, which aims to curtail the suo motu powers of office of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), ARY News reported on Monday.
Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar moved the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 which was passed by the Parliament.
It is to mention that President Dr Arif Alvi had returned the ‘judicial reforms’ bill for reconsideration to the Parliament as per the provisions of Article 75 of the Constitution.
The minister read out the message of the President who returned the bill for reconsideration. He said that bill was discussed in detail in National Assembly and it was also approved by the Senate.
The minister responded to the objections to the bill and said the “President used inappropriate words while returning this bill and used a biased approach”. He said that he should think “as the President rather than a political worker”.
Azam Nazeer Tarar said it was the demand of the bar associations and councils to introduce the bill and they had supported the bill. This bill, he said, was an old demand of the Bar Council which said that the indiscriminate use of 184(3) should be stopped.
...
https://arynews.tv/parliaments-joint-sitting-passes-sc-bill-clipping-cjps-wings/
Amid strong protests by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmakers, the Joint Sitting of Parliament on Monday passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, which aims to curtail the suo motu powers of office of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), ARY News reported on Monday.
Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar moved the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 which was passed by the Parliament.
It is to mention that President Dr Arif Alvi had returned the ‘judicial reforms’ bill for reconsideration to the Parliament as per the provisions of Article 75 of the Constitution.
The minister read out the message of the President who returned the bill for reconsideration. He said that bill was discussed in detail in National Assembly and it was also approved by the Senate.
The minister responded to the objections to the bill and said the “President used inappropriate words while returning this bill and used a biased approach”. He said that he should think “as the President rather than a political worker”.
Azam Nazeer Tarar said it was the demand of the bar associations and councils to introduce the bill and they had supported the bill. This bill, he said, was an old demand of the Bar Council which said that the indiscriminate use of 184(3) should be stopped.
...
https://arynews.tv/parliaments-joint-sitting-passes-sc-bill-clipping-cjps-wings/
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
Bill curtailing CJP’s powers challenged in SC, IHC
A day after a joint session of parliament adopted a bill seeking to curtail the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan, lawyers challenged the piece of legislation in the Supre**me Court and the Islam*abad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday through similar petitions.
The bill, which was earlier passed by both houses last month but was later returned by President Arif Alvi, was approved by the joint session with some amendments on Monday.
The petition in the Supreme Court was filed by Advocate Muhammad Shafay Mu*nir, who challenged the legislation — the Supreme Court (Practice and Proc*e*dure) Bill 2023 — insisting that the plea had been filed to safeguard and secure the Constitution and independence of the judiciary.
In the petition, moved under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, Mr Mun*ir contended that the petitioner believed in the su**p*remacy of the Constitu*tion, the rule of law, and independence of the judiciary and had always strived and struggled to protect the Constitution, independence of the judiciary and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The respondents named in the petition included the federal government through the secretaries of law, Senate and National Assembly.
A similar petition filed in the IHC contended that the bill had limited the CJP’s jurisdiction, as it made it mandatory for him to consult senior judges while forming benches.
It said that though the legal fraternity demanded the right of appeal against suo motu proceedings, it could have been made without curtailing CJP’s powers.
...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1747223/bill-curtailing-cjps-powers-challenged-in-sc-ihc
A day after a joint session of parliament adopted a bill seeking to curtail the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan, lawyers challenged the piece of legislation in the Supre**me Court and the Islam*abad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday through similar petitions.
The bill, which was earlier passed by both houses last month but was later returned by President Arif Alvi, was approved by the joint session with some amendments on Monday.
The petition in the Supreme Court was filed by Advocate Muhammad Shafay Mu*nir, who challenged the legislation — the Supreme Court (Practice and Proc*e*dure) Bill 2023 — insisting that the plea had been filed to safeguard and secure the Constitution and independence of the judiciary.
In the petition, moved under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, Mr Mun*ir contended that the petitioner believed in the su**p*remacy of the Constitu*tion, the rule of law, and independence of the judiciary and had always strived and struggled to protect the Constitution, independence of the judiciary and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The respondents named in the petition included the federal government through the secretaries of law, Senate and National Assembly.
A similar petition filed in the IHC contended that the bill had limited the CJP’s jurisdiction, as it made it mandatory for him to consult senior judges while forming benches.
It said that though the legal fraternity demanded the right of appeal against suo motu proceedings, it could have been made without curtailing CJP’s powers.
...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1747223/bill-curtailing-cjps-powers-challenged-in-sc-ihc
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Law of the jungle.
==
The federal coalition — the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) — on Thursday rejected the Supreme Court bench set to hear petitions against a pending legislation meant to clip the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) powers, saying that the apex court’s move to form a “controversial bench” even before the completion of the legislative process was “unprecedented” and “unacceptable”.
In a joint statement, the ruling parties opposed the eight-judge bench, saying that “such a move was never seen in the history of Pakistan and the SC”.
The bill, titled the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. However, the president had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”.
On Monday, the bill was passed by a joint sitting of parliament with certain amendments, amid a noisy protest from PTI lawmakers.
An eight-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by the chief justice, will take up a set of three petitions challenging the bill at 11:30am today.
In addition to CJP Umar Ata Bandial, the bench comprises Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
Notably missing from the bench are Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan who had earlier ruled that the CJP did not have the power to make special benches or decide its members and ordered the postponement of all suo motu matters. The order was later recalled by a six-member larger bench. Justice Isa, in a judicial note, later said that the bench did not “constitute a constitutional court”.
The statement issued by the ruling coalition today said that the top judge’s move was “tantamount to destroying the credibility of the highest court of the country and making the constitutional process of justice meaningless”.
“This bench itself is a testament to the division of the SC, which once again supports the earlier stated position of the ruling parties.”
The statement recalled that the apex court judges — Justice Isa and Justice Khan — had in their earlier judgments openly expressed their objection to “one-man show”, biased and dictatorial behavior, and the formation of special benches.
“With the formation of the eight-member controversial bench, the facts stated in the judgments of these honorable judges have become more clear,” the PDM said in its statement.
It further contended that the the legal fraternity too had opposed the apex court’s move to take up the petitions against a proposed law. The coalition goverment also expressed concern regarding the non-inclusion of judges from smaller provinces i.e. Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
“The ruling parties consider this move as an attack on the parliament and its authority, which will be strongly resisted. The constitution of the controversial bench in haste and fixing the bill for hearing, apart from the intent and intention, also clearly expresses the decision to come which is sad and tantamount to murder of justice,” the statement said.
It added that every attempt to take away the authority of the parliament and interfere in its constitutional scope will be strongly resisted. “There will be no compromise on the authority of the Parliament in the light of the Constitution of Pakistan,” the statement concluded.
PBC protest call
In a statement issued on Wednesday night, the PBC took issue with the fact that challenges to the SC (Practice & Procedure) Bill were taken up in haste and assailed the formation of “a one-sided and controversial bench” to take up the matter.
Lawyer leaders termed the step an attempt to divide the higest court in the land and agreed that never in history had a law enacted by parliament been prevented from being implemented.
They said that the legislation conforms to the demands of bar councils and associations across the country, and any attempts to prevent its passage would be opposed.
Announcing a complete boycott of the courts to protest this development, the PBC statement said that its representatives from across the country would meet on April 17 to consider the issue.
The petitions
The petitions challenging the SC (Practice & Procedure) Bill, 2023 were separately moved by Mohammad Shafay Munir on Tuesday, and Raja Amer Khan and Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain on Wednesday.
They argue that the concept, preparation, endorsement and passing of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 is an act tainted with mala fide. Therefore, they urge the SC to strike it down after declaring it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The federal government, law secretary as well as principal secretaries to the premier and president have been named as respondents in the case.
Advocate Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui will represent petitioner Khan, Advocate Mohammad Azhar Siddique will appear on behalf of petitioner Hussain whereas Advocate Mohammad Hussain will represent petitioner Munir.
The petitioners requested the SC to suspend the bill during the pendency of the petition, with a directive for President Dr Arif Alvi not to assent bill so that it could not become an act of parliament. They contended that the federal government cannot frame any law that seeks to interfere or regulate with the functioning of the apex court or the powers exercised by it or its judges, including the CJP, under the Constitution.
The impugned bill is ultra vires and an unconstitutional measure, in sheer violation to the constitutional mandate, the petitions said, adding the federal government has committed a blatant violation of the Constitution.
According to the petitions, the Supreme Court and its corpus as defined in Article 176 consists of CJP and so many other judges as may be determined by the parliament or, until so determined, as may be fixed by the president. It is clear that the CJP is the centrifugal force and the entire fabric of the apex court is webbed around it. The independence of the judiciary and of each of the judges and its CJP is declared as an aim enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution; the same is a part of the objective resolution and thus a substantive part of the constitution, the petitions emphasized.
The SC, led by CJP with its judges, must be independent from all executive or legislative transgress so as to perform their constitutional obligations in providing justice to the people of Pakistan. The same cannot be allowed to be compromised with regards to the function of the judicial organ of the state, the judges or CJP or their independence as provided in the constitution.
It is unimaginable that the office of CJP with respect to constitutional powers, inter alia, of suo motu could be allowed to be regulated by the parliament, according to the petitions.
The petitioners further argued the parliament could not make a law that was inconsistent with the referred provisions of the Constitution. They contended that if any appeal could be allowed by a legislative enactment then the same could only be available through an amendment to the Constitution.
Passage of the bill
The bill was approved by the federal cabinet on March 28 and the National Assembly passed it a day later after a few amendments suggested by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.
On March 30, it was passed by the Senate and then referred to the president for his approval.
The president, however, returned it, with the objection that it was a “colourable legislation”. In his detailed reply, which he also posted on Twitter, the president said that he thought it fit and proper to return the bill, in accordance with the Constitution, with “the request for reconsideration in order to meet the scrutiny about its validity (if assailed in the court of law)”.
He underlined that Article 191 of the Constitution empowered the SC “to make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court”.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, however, had termed the president’s move to be “most unfortunate”. “Through his conduct, he has belittled the august affice by acting as a worker of the PTI, one who is beholden to Imran Niazi more than the Constitution and demands of his office,” he said.
On Monday, the bill was passed by the parliament’s joint session with a few amendments. As per the Constitution, the bill will be sent to the president once again for his assent, and if he does not sign it within ten days, assent will be deemed to have been granted.
According to the fresh legislation, a three-member bench consisting of the CJP and the two senior-most judges of the apex court will decide whether or not to take up a matter suo motu. Previously, this was solely the prerogative of the CJP.
The law also states that every cause, matter, or appeal before the apex court would be heard and disposed of by a bench, constituted by a committee made up of the chief justice and the two senior-most judges.
The legislation also includes the right to file an appeal within 30 days of the judgement in a suo motu case and that any case involving constitutional interpretation will not have a bench of fewer than five judges.
The bill would allow former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and other parliamentarians disqualified by the Supreme Court under suo motu powers (such as Jahangir Tareen) to appeal their disqualification within 30 days of the law’s enactment.
DAWN
==
The federal coalition — the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) — on Thursday rejected the Supreme Court bench set to hear petitions against a pending legislation meant to clip the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) powers, saying that the apex court’s move to form a “controversial bench” even before the completion of the legislative process was “unprecedented” and “unacceptable”.
In a joint statement, the ruling parties opposed the eight-judge bench, saying that “such a move was never seen in the history of Pakistan and the SC”.
The bill, titled the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. However, the president had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”.
On Monday, the bill was passed by a joint sitting of parliament with certain amendments, amid a noisy protest from PTI lawmakers.
An eight-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by the chief justice, will take up a set of three petitions challenging the bill at 11:30am today.
In addition to CJP Umar Ata Bandial, the bench comprises Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
Notably missing from the bench are Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan who had earlier ruled that the CJP did not have the power to make special benches or decide its members and ordered the postponement of all suo motu matters. The order was later recalled by a six-member larger bench. Justice Isa, in a judicial note, later said that the bench did not “constitute a constitutional court”.
The statement issued by the ruling coalition today said that the top judge’s move was “tantamount to destroying the credibility of the highest court of the country and making the constitutional process of justice meaningless”.
“This bench itself is a testament to the division of the SC, which once again supports the earlier stated position of the ruling parties.”
The statement recalled that the apex court judges — Justice Isa and Justice Khan — had in their earlier judgments openly expressed their objection to “one-man show”, biased and dictatorial behavior, and the formation of special benches.
“With the formation of the eight-member controversial bench, the facts stated in the judgments of these honorable judges have become more clear,” the PDM said in its statement.
It further contended that the the legal fraternity too had opposed the apex court’s move to take up the petitions against a proposed law. The coalition goverment also expressed concern regarding the non-inclusion of judges from smaller provinces i.e. Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
“The ruling parties consider this move as an attack on the parliament and its authority, which will be strongly resisted. The constitution of the controversial bench in haste and fixing the bill for hearing, apart from the intent and intention, also clearly expresses the decision to come which is sad and tantamount to murder of justice,” the statement said.
It added that every attempt to take away the authority of the parliament and interfere in its constitutional scope will be strongly resisted. “There will be no compromise on the authority of the Parliament in the light of the Constitution of Pakistan,” the statement concluded.
PBC protest call
In a statement issued on Wednesday night, the PBC took issue with the fact that challenges to the SC (Practice & Procedure) Bill were taken up in haste and assailed the formation of “a one-sided and controversial bench” to take up the matter.
Lawyer leaders termed the step an attempt to divide the higest court in the land and agreed that never in history had a law enacted by parliament been prevented from being implemented.
They said that the legislation conforms to the demands of bar councils and associations across the country, and any attempts to prevent its passage would be opposed.
Announcing a complete boycott of the courts to protest this development, the PBC statement said that its representatives from across the country would meet on April 17 to consider the issue.
The petitions
The petitions challenging the SC (Practice & Procedure) Bill, 2023 were separately moved by Mohammad Shafay Munir on Tuesday, and Raja Amer Khan and Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain on Wednesday.
They argue that the concept, preparation, endorsement and passing of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 is an act tainted with mala fide. Therefore, they urge the SC to strike it down after declaring it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The federal government, law secretary as well as principal secretaries to the premier and president have been named as respondents in the case.
Advocate Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui will represent petitioner Khan, Advocate Mohammad Azhar Siddique will appear on behalf of petitioner Hussain whereas Advocate Mohammad Hussain will represent petitioner Munir.
The petitioners requested the SC to suspend the bill during the pendency of the petition, with a directive for President Dr Arif Alvi not to assent bill so that it could not become an act of parliament. They contended that the federal government cannot frame any law that seeks to interfere or regulate with the functioning of the apex court or the powers exercised by it or its judges, including the CJP, under the Constitution.
The impugned bill is ultra vires and an unconstitutional measure, in sheer violation to the constitutional mandate, the petitions said, adding the federal government has committed a blatant violation of the Constitution.
According to the petitions, the Supreme Court and its corpus as defined in Article 176 consists of CJP and so many other judges as may be determined by the parliament or, until so determined, as may be fixed by the president. It is clear that the CJP is the centrifugal force and the entire fabric of the apex court is webbed around it. The independence of the judiciary and of each of the judges and its CJP is declared as an aim enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution; the same is a part of the objective resolution and thus a substantive part of the constitution, the petitions emphasized.
The SC, led by CJP with its judges, must be independent from all executive or legislative transgress so as to perform their constitutional obligations in providing justice to the people of Pakistan. The same cannot be allowed to be compromised with regards to the function of the judicial organ of the state, the judges or CJP or their independence as provided in the constitution.
It is unimaginable that the office of CJP with respect to constitutional powers, inter alia, of suo motu could be allowed to be regulated by the parliament, according to the petitions.
The petitioners further argued the parliament could not make a law that was inconsistent with the referred provisions of the Constitution. They contended that if any appeal could be allowed by a legislative enactment then the same could only be available through an amendment to the Constitution.
Passage of the bill
The bill was approved by the federal cabinet on March 28 and the National Assembly passed it a day later after a few amendments suggested by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.
On March 30, it was passed by the Senate and then referred to the president for his approval.
The president, however, returned it, with the objection that it was a “colourable legislation”. In his detailed reply, which he also posted on Twitter, the president said that he thought it fit and proper to return the bill, in accordance with the Constitution, with “the request for reconsideration in order to meet the scrutiny about its validity (if assailed in the court of law)”.
He underlined that Article 191 of the Constitution empowered the SC “to make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court”.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, however, had termed the president’s move to be “most unfortunate”. “Through his conduct, he has belittled the august affice by acting as a worker of the PTI, one who is beholden to Imran Niazi more than the Constitution and demands of his office,” he said.
On Monday, the bill was passed by the parliament’s joint session with a few amendments. As per the Constitution, the bill will be sent to the president once again for his assent, and if he does not sign it within ten days, assent will be deemed to have been granted.
According to the fresh legislation, a three-member bench consisting of the CJP and the two senior-most judges of the apex court will decide whether or not to take up a matter suo motu. Previously, this was solely the prerogative of the CJP.
The law also states that every cause, matter, or appeal before the apex court would be heard and disposed of by a bench, constituted by a committee made up of the chief justice and the two senior-most judges.
The legislation also includes the right to file an appeal within 30 days of the judgement in a suo motu case and that any case involving constitutional interpretation will not have a bench of fewer than five judges.
The bill would allow former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and other parliamentarians disqualified by the Supreme Court under suo motu powers (such as Jahangir Tareen) to appeal their disqualification within 30 days of the law’s enactment.
DAWN
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
As the federal coalition rejected the Supreme Court bench hearing petitions against a pending legislation meant to clip the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) powers, Justice Umar Ata Bandial said on Thursday that the SC had to examine whether the bill in question violated the Constitution.
The CJP noted that independence of the judiciary was an important matter but at the same time said that he had utmost respect for the parliament.
He passed these remarks as an eight-judge bench took up a set of three petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023.
The proposed law is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. However, the president had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”.
DAWN
The CJP noted that independence of the judiciary was an important matter but at the same time said that he had utmost respect for the parliament.
He passed these remarks as an eight-judge bench took up a set of three petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023.
The proposed law is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. However, the president had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”.
DAWN
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
In a pre-emptive strike, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled on Thursday that after the bill aimed at clipping the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) received either the president’s assent or it was deemed to have been given, the act that “comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect nor be acted upon in any manner”.
An eight-judge SC bench issued the written order while hearing a set of three petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023.
The proposed law is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity.
It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. However, the president had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”.
DAWN
An eight-judge SC bench issued the written order while hearing a set of three petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023.
The proposed law is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity.
It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. However, the president had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”.
DAWN
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
Reference for 'serious misconduct' filed against CJP Bandial-led larger bench hearing SC bill
10-page reference filed by Lawyer Mian Dawood.
Says these judges acted in violation of Article 209 of Constitution.
Lawyer urges SJC tp "urgently" inquire actions of CJP Bandial.
ISLAMABAD: A day after an eight-member larger bench of the Supreme Court began hearing the petitions challenging a bill seeking to curtail the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), Lawyer Mian Dawood filed a reference against the judges.
The reference was filed by the same lawyer who earlier registered a complaint against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.
In a 10-page reference filed before the Supreme Judicial Council, the complainant accused CJP Umar Ata Bandial and seven other judges of being guilty of "serious misconduct" under Articles III, IV, V VI, and IX of the code of conduct.
It should be noted that the eight-member SC bench has been facing constant criticism since its formation two days ago with the coalition government rejecting the larger bench, claiming it to be “controversial” as it is a “testament to the division of the apex court”.
...
https://www.geo.tv/latest/482033-re...-cjp-bandial-led-larger-bench-hearing-sc-bill
10-page reference filed by Lawyer Mian Dawood.
Says these judges acted in violation of Article 209 of Constitution.
Lawyer urges SJC tp "urgently" inquire actions of CJP Bandial.
ISLAMABAD: A day after an eight-member larger bench of the Supreme Court began hearing the petitions challenging a bill seeking to curtail the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), Lawyer Mian Dawood filed a reference against the judges.
The reference was filed by the same lawyer who earlier registered a complaint against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.
In a 10-page reference filed before the Supreme Judicial Council, the complainant accused CJP Umar Ata Bandial and seven other judges of being guilty of "serious misconduct" under Articles III, IV, V VI, and IX of the code of conduct.
It should be noted that the eight-member SC bench has been facing constant criticism since its formation two days ago with the coalition government rejecting the larger bench, claiming it to be “controversial” as it is a “testament to the division of the apex court”.
...
https://www.geo.tv/latest/482033-re...-cjp-bandial-led-larger-bench-hearing-sc-bill
daytrader
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Runs
- 10,850
- Post of the Week
- 1
Sometimes they want a larger bench, sometimes they go up in arms against a larger bench. PDM crooks have no principles and change their stances daily. U turns all around
