The cat is out of the bag: IHC judges seek SJC meeting over ‘interference’ in judicial affairs

[BouncerGuy]

SCBA, govt dragging feet on response to meddling issue

Disquiet is growing within the ranks of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) over the indecision on its response to a letter, written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court, alleging meddling in judicial affairs by intelligence agencies.

A similar reluctance is evident on the part of the government, which may not furnish any reply or suggestion to the Supreme Court, since it believes that it is an institutional matter and should be decided by the institution itself.

The SCBA has been hesitant in charting a course to ensure the independence of judiciary, as required by the Supreme Court, which is seized with a suo motu case against the backdrop of the March 25 letter written by the six IHC judges.

In its April 3 order, the apex court had asked the SCBA and the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) to furnish their proposals by April 25, after proper consultation within the respective bodies.

The SC had expressed the confidence that the association will furnish practical suggestions for realising a robust and independent judiciary, free from external pressures not to compromise its integrity and fair administration of justice.

Consequently, some members of the SCBA’s 26th executive committee confided to Dawn that despite requests for an urgent meeting to chalk out the association’s response, no such huddle seems to be on the cards in the near future.

One of the body’s senior members even requisitioned a meeting at the earliest possible date, on or before April 25, to discuss the contents of the judges’ letter and examine the implications of the SC’s April 3 order in the context of the allegations of executive interference.

The member said the meeting should also consider appropriate responses and actions to be taken by the association for upholding the independence of judiciary, addressing encroachments by the executive branch and formulating recommendations and strategies to prevent future occurrences of such interference by strengthening the rule of law.

SCBA President Shahzad Shaukat, when approached, rubbished the claim that no meeting was being called, saying that in fact a consultative meeting has been called for May 8.

“We believe that a suitable response on behalf of the association should be given to the Supreme Court — a response befitting of the premier association,” he said, adding that the SCBA has sought input from members which will be deliberated upon during the May 8 meeting for developing an official statement on behalf of the association.

PBC’s stance

When the chairman of the executive committee of Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Farooq Naek, was asked why no meeting was called, he said the PBC had already held a meeting on April 5, in which a resolution was approved seeking an impartial investigation by a judicial commission consisting of SC’s sitting judges to settle the issues raised by the six IHC judges.

The resolution pointed out that when judges express concern through a written letter, it signifies a moment of great significance to the independent working of judicial system. Thus to safeguard law, Constitution and fundamental rights of the citizens of Pakistan, a comprehensive investigation into these allegations is not only justified but necessary, it had emphasised.

“This is our response to the Supreme Court and it will remain so,” Mr Naek explained.

Govt reluctance

A source privy to the development told Dawn that the federal government may also not furnish any reply or suggestion to the Supreme Court, since it believes that it is an institutional matter and should be decided within the institution.

Besides, he explained, there was no need of giving any reply when the IHC judges had accused the government or institutions of meddling into the judicial affairs. However, the government will follow any directions issued by the court.

Since a number of petitions have also been filed before the apex court, the source said, it is likely that the SC may consider issuing notices to the respondents and may give another opportunity to the bar associations to furnish their response.

Another plea

On Wednesday, the Balochistan Bar Council and the Balochistan High Court Bar Association moved separate petitions before the Supreme Court seeking a direction that illegal acts of meddling into judicial affairs should be declared unconstitutional and unlawful rather a threat to the rule of law, access to justice and independence of judiciary.

The court should also order the federal government to deal in accordance with law with those who were found involved in such matters.

SOURCE: DAWN

 

[FearlessRoar]

IHC Judges Letter: SHC Bar pleads to SC for a monitoring system

The SHC Bar in a petition of the apex court over the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges’ letter, pleaded for an appropriate inquiry. “The government should be directed to devise a monitoring system over the matter,” the SHC Bar requested.

The high court bar has also pleaded that it should be ensured that any state institution could not cross its constitutional mandate.

“The independence of judiciary is a constitutional requirement and fundamental right of the people,” SHC Bar pleaded.

Earlier, the legal fraternity had demanded the constitution of a full bench to hear the suo moto case regarding IHC judges’ letter, alleging interference in judicial functions by intelligence agencies.

All Pakistan Lawyers Convention, held in Lahore rejected a larger bench formed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The lawyers demanded the apex court to constitute a full bench to proceed with the hearing.

It is pertinent to mention here that the apex court formed a new bench to hear a suo motu case regarding the allegations of interference by intelligence agencies in judicial functions after Justice Yahya Afridi recused himself from the hearing.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa would head the bench which also comprises Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhaill, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

The Chief Justice on April 1 took suo moto notice of IHC judges’ letter in which they alleged interference by intelligence agencies in judicial matters.

IHC judges, including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Salman Rafat Imtiaz – penned the letter to SJC in the aftermath of Supreme Court’s March 22 judgement on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s dismissal case.

In the letter, the top judges sought guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with regard to the duty of a “judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies, that seek to interfere with discharge of his/her official functions and qualify as intimidation”.

IHC Judges Letter: SHC Bar pleads to SC for a monitoring system

ISLAMABAD: Sindh High Court (SHC) Bar has pleaded to the Supreme Court to declare the government's inquiry commission over IHC six judges' letter as void,

arynews.tv

 

[BouncerGuy]

SC moved to form commission to probe IHC judges' letter

The Supreme Court was moved on Monday to establish an inquiry commission comprising three top court judges to investigate the contents and context of a letter written six sitting justices of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) regarding the alleged interference of intelligence agencies in judicial matters and surveillance of judges' residences.

Advocate Khudayar Mohla, former president of the Press Association of the Supreme Court (PAS), has invoked the jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

Filing the petition through his counsel Dr GM Chaudhry, Mohla named the federal government, including the prime minister, secretaries of the cabinet division, ministry of law and justice, and ministry of interior, as respondents in the case.

The move comes ahead of a crucial hearing scheduled for April 30, where a six-member larger bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez is set to deliberate on the matter.

In his plea to the SC for redressal in the case, Khudayar Mohla urged for a commission to conduct a thorough investigation into the letter, and “to fix responsibility of persons in their official status who had indulged in interfering judicial working of the said learned judges to close backdoor of interference by any executive authority or intelligence agency, etc., in the interest of justice and independence of the judiciary”.

Citing suo motu action regarding the Islamabad-Rawalpindi dharna verdict, the petitioner sought the court directives to all the respondents for immediate enactment of a law defining and prescribing powers, functions and duties of officials and officers of the intelligence agencies within a stipulated timeframe under intimation to the top court.

He emphasised the principle of equality before the law, stressing the crucial necessity to hold accountable any official found to have engaged in wrongdoing under constitutional provisions.

Citing a ruling by the SC to bolster his argument, Advocate Mohla appealed for directives from the apex court to the respondents to initiate the enactment of a law pursuant to Article 212(1)(b) of the Constitution. This law would address tortious acts or illegal omissions, ensuring punishments and compensations for aggrieved citizens of Pakistan.

The petitioner also requested directives to be issued to the respondents, urging them to establish appropriate rules and regulations. This would prevent the continuation of existing customs and norms among public servants in certain departments who perform their duties in arbitrary manners.

Such practices, often enforced through office memorandums, letters, or instructions, hold no legal validity and need to be rectified, he added.

SOURCE: EXPRESS TRIBUNE

 

[Bewal Express]

This is corruption on another level and his desperation for another extension is putting PK at risk. His constant interruption and diversions seemed like a guy who had a gun to his head to kill the complaint

 

[Bewal Express]

Full scale assault on Justice Babar Sattar and his family by the Establishment and the mafia touts.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

We won't interfere in high court affairs, it didn't lead to good consequences in the past: CJP

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday said they would not interfere in the matters related to the high court as the practice in the past didn’t produce good consequences.

“Can a chief justice phone a subordinate judge to order that the verdict should be passed in such a manner?” he asked during the hearing of a suo moto case related to a letter written by the six justices of Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The IHC judges’ letter case is being heard by a six-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Isa and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

After the culmination of Tuesday’s proceedings, the six-member bench adjourned the hearing till May 7 and asked the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and others to submit their replies containing suggestions on the subject.

We won't interfere in high court affairs, it didn't lead to good consequences in the past: CJP

Observes appointment of 'monitoring judge' is also interference

dunyanews.tv

 

[Kianig89]

If anyone stills regards the credibility of QFE got a reality check, this man might get extension will be another travesty

 

[BouncerGuy]

SO it is widely accepted by the SC that the interference has been made and the sub-ordinate judges were told to make a decision like this and that.

No wonders here why the Judiciary of Pakistan is so down the number in the whole world.

 

[BouncerGuy]

PHC also admits spy agencies ‘interfere’ in cases

After the Islamabad High Court, other high courts have also acknowledged the interference of the country’s security apparatus in judicial functions -- especially those related to political matters.

The Peshawar High Court and Lahore High Court have both admitted that the interference of intelligence agencies in judicial affairs was an 'open secret'.

"Interference in politics, functioning of parliament and the judicial working of the superior judiciary by the executive organs of the State is an open secret. Some of the participants/judges have expressed and shared the trauma, which they underwent due to [the] interference [of] the intelligence agencies when some political cases came up for hearing before the bench, which was presided over by them,” read the PHC’s reply submitted to the Supreme Court in a suo motu case in connection with six IHC judges’ letter.

“They [participants/judges] have also complained about the direct approach to them by the members of the intelligence agencies seeking favour in [deciding] political cases. However, when the matters were decided impartially, they received life threats through non-State actors from the neighbouring country, Afghanistan,” it added.

“The matter was also discussed with the Counter-Terrorism Department [CTD] but with no progress. Similarly, this fact was also brought into the notice of all concerned at the highest level.”

The LHC in its reply stated that a large majority of the judges present in the meeting also observed with grave concern that the “interference of agencies/executive in the independence of judiciary is an open secret”. It continued that the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court to prevent this interference had turned out to be “ineffective”.

“Therefore, the judges of LHC expect that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its final judgement in this suo motu case, may give a comprehensive mechanism to deal with the matter.”

The reply read that it was unanimously proposed that the code of conduct of the superior court judges and district judiciary should be amended.

It continued that there should be a complete ban on the meeting of the judges with the members of intelligence agencies, with the exception of cases of close blood relationship.

It was also proposed that it should be mandatory for every judicial officer to immediately disclose to a district and sessions judge, the LHC chief justice and the chief justice of Pakistan if any attempt is made to interfere in their court work.

“A permanent cell may be constituted at the high court and Supreme Court level to process such reports/complaints and their decisions in accordance with the law."

The LHC response stated that the intelligence agencies involved in phone tapping or audio/video recording etc. of judges and their families should be identified and proceeded against in accordance with the law.

"If a judge of [the] high court or district judiciary is approached, intimidated or blackmailed by any member of the state agencies/executive, then [the] said judge apart from taking initiating legal proceedings against the responsible persons may also initiate contempt proceedings against him/them or he may proceed in the matter as envisaged under section 228 PPC as the case may be."

The LHC hoped in its reply that the final verdict by the SC would cover a great distance in protecting and upholding the constitutional principle of trichotomy of power by ensuring free as well as independent functioning of each institution of the State.

It was suggested that the chief justice as well as the district and sessions judge and the judge himself should immediately try to secure the CCTV camera footage, phone recordings or other evidence which could be secured through modern devices in case any attempt of interference in the independence of judiciary was made by the executive or intelligence agencies.

“There always remain more chance of interference in ATCs [anti-terrorism courts , NAB [National Accountability Bureau] and anti-corruption courts, where sensitive matters are decided therefore the high courts should be empowered to directly make transfer/postings of the judges of said courts without approval/interference of the federal/provincial governments and relevant provisions of law should be amended.”

The LHC reply states that if the relevant judge of the high court or the district judiciary himself does not initiate contempt or other legal proceedings, in that case he may report the incident with full details to the Chief Justice or the district & sessions judge, as the case may be.

"On receipt of the report from a Judge of the High Court, the Chief Justice shall constitute a suitable Bench comprising of at-least five (05) Senior Judges of the Court to hear and decide the said case.

"In the case of incident reported by a Judge of the High Court, the matter shall also be brought into the notice of the hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan, who may also take proper action on the said complaint if deemed necessary, provided the cognizance of the matter has already not been taken by the concerned Judge himself or the High Court.

Likewise, on receipt of report from a Judge of the District Judiciary, the District & Sessions Judge, apart from taking any other legal action, shall proceed in the matter as envisaged under section 228 PPC. He shall also report the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court. Same procedure shall be adopted by judges of special courts.

LHC reply says that presumption of truth shall be attached to the complaint/ affidavit of a judge. Moreover, judge should not be liable to be cross examined by any party to the case.

SOURCE: EXPRESS TRIBUNE

 

[Bewal Express]

The irony that Minullah was himself a big party to the mafia in the IHC, you must guarantee NSs life and all that.

 

[BouncerGuy]

PHC proposes legislation for stipulating mandate of intelligence agencies

A full court meeting of Peshawar High Court has proposed enactment of laws by federal government for stipulating the respective mandate of intelligence agencies so as to protect judges of superior courts from harassment and intimidation.

Like rest of the high courts, PHC has submitted a five-page report to Supreme Court of Pakistan in the ongoing suo moto case about meddling by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.

The report, including opinions and proposals, was prepared after the matter was discussed in the full-court meeting chaired by chief justice on April 22. A six-member Supreme Court bench heard the case on April 30 and will conduct further proceedings on May 7.

PHC has referred to the famous judgment of Supreme Court in suo motu case No.7 of 2017, commonly known as ‘Faizabad Dharna case’ and quoted different directives issued by the apex court in it.

“The directions of apex court in suo moto case No.7 of 2017 should be implemented in letter and spirit and federal government should be asked to legislate/enact laws clearly stipulating the respective mandate of intelligence agencies, more particularly to make any such activity or adventure of intelligence agency interfering in the working of judiciary punishable under the penal laws of the state,” PHC proposed.

It also recommended amending or framing comprehensive rules by high court envisaging that a judge of the high court or subordinate judiciary, if received any threat, intimidation or temptation or interference from executive or any member of any organ of the executive or non-state actor, should immediately inform the chief justice of high court through a written complaint mentioning therein the facts and details and the nature of threats, intimidation, temptation or interference in any matter, which was pending before him.

It added that copy of the complaint should be sent to Supreme Judicial Council, all members of administrative committee and registrar of high court.

“The role of chief justice and members of the administration committee relating to disposal of any complaint received from a sitting judge of a high court or the member of subordinate judiciary relating to receipt of any threat, intimidation, temptation or interference from any executive organ of state or non-state actor, shall be regulated by rules/orders, inter-alia providing a mechanism proactively initiating all steps which are necessary for alleviating/ curbing the said threat through all possible means on administrative sides,” PHC recommended.

It further provides: “If the administrative committee reaches at the conclusion that due to lack of cooperation of any executive organ of state, the said threat to a judge still continues, then the matter shall be taken on judicial side by constitution of larger bench for passing appropriate orders, initiating contempt of court proceedings against the delinquent officials of state or any member of any organ of state including members of intelligence agencies, who are involved in such threats/intimidation.”

PHC has also proposed making certain additions in Article IV of Code of Conduct for judges of superior courts for making it mandatory on a judge of high court to immediately inform the chief justice of high court, through a written complaint, about receiving any threat and intimidation, etc.

While referring to different notification of high court related to its administration committee, PHC noted that there was no notification for a mechanism envisaging for proactive response to illegal interference by any executive organ of state in the judicial working of a judge.

The report also quoted different directions given by apex court in ‘Faizabad Dharna case’ including: “To best ensure transparency and the rule of law it would be appropriate to enact laws, which clearly stipulate the respective mandates of the intelligence agencies.”

The report pointed out had the directions issued by apex court in the said judgment followed by the executive/parliament and the role of the intelligence agencies, more particularly its interference in politics, media and judiciary, was prohibited through the Act of parliament, the present spiraling atmosphere would have never arisen.

“Interference in politics, functioning of parliament and judicial working of superior judiciary by executive organs of state is an open secret. Some of the participants/judges have expressed and shared the trauma, which they underwent due to interference by the intelligence agencies when some political cases came up for hearing before the bench, which was presided over by them,” PHC admitted in its response.

It further states: “They have also complained about direct approach to them by members of intelligence agencies seeking favour in decision of political cases. However, when the matters were decided impartially, they received life threats through non-state actors from the neighbouring country, Afghanistan.”

“The matter was also discussed with Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) but with no progress. Similarly, this fact was also brought into the notice of all concerned at the highest level,” it said.

SOURCE: DAWN

 

[BouncerGuy]

IHC judges’ letter: SC resumes suo motu hearing on interference allegations

A six-member Supreme Court (SC) bench has resumed hearing a case pertaining to allegations made by six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges regarding interference by the country’s security apparatus in judicial matters.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the bench includes justices Athar Minallah, Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhtar Afghan. The proceedings are being streamed live on the SC’s website and its YouTube channel.

In late March, six IHC judges — out of a total strength of eight — wrote a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members, regarding attempts to pressure judges through the abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes.

The letter was signed by judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.

A day later, calls had emerged from various quarters for a probe into the investigation, amid which CJP Isa summoned a full court meeting of the SC judges.

In a meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and CJP Isa had decided to form an inquiry commission, which was later approved by the federal cabinet.

However, ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani — tasked to head the one-man inquiry commission — recused himself from the role, urging Justice Isa to “resolve the issues raised in the letter at the institutional level”. At the same time, the top court took suo motu notice of the matter.

Justice Yahya Afridi, who was among the seven-member bench that presided over the last hearing, had recused himself from the case. At the previous hearing, CJP Isa had asserted that “any attack” on the judiciary’s independence would not be tolerated while hinting at forming a full court to hear the case.

Besides the suo motu, the SC has also taken up more than 10 petitions and applications seeking its intervention, which were filed by various bar associations and had been clubbed together.

Last month, an IHC full court decided to introduce several measures, including the reactivation of “empowered” inspection teams to put an end to the alleged meddling. Later, a four-point “unanimous proposal”, signed by all eight IHC judges, was issued that largely relied on existing laws to counter any interference.

At the previous hearing, CJP Isa had noted that the “five high courts have filed their responses/proposals/suggestions” in the case.

Justice Minallah had observed that the Lahore High Court was “endorsing what the IHC has said”. Meanwhile, the Peshawar High Court had proposed legislation for stipulating the respective mandate of intelligence agencies, noting that interference in the “working of superior judiciary by executive organs of state is an open secret”.

The SC had ordered the petitioners — bar councils and associations — to submit their response by today. It had also said that the federal government and any intelligence agency concerned with the allegations could respond through the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP).

Today, AGP Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the court. Khawaja Ahmed Husain appeared as Aitzaz Ahsan’s counsel.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan requested the court for more time to present his arguments as he had not received a copy of the April 30 hearing.

Stating that he also had to speak with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on the matter, he sought time till tomorrow.

CJP Isa then inquired the counsels of the bar councils and associations how long they would take to present their arguments.

The top judge said that first, counsels representing lawyer organisations would be heard and then those who are pleading on behalf of individuals.

Upon Justice Isa’s directive, the AGP then read aloud the short order from the last hearing. “As highlighted by all the high courts, this is the most serious and grave matter undermining the independence of the judiciary, which cannot be trivialised,” he quoted the order as saying.

The CJP then summoned the Pakistan Bar Council’s (PBC) lawyer to the rostrum, noting that its members had submitted separate responses and could “not come on a single page even for the judiciary’s independence”.

Justice Minallah asked the counsel if it would not have been better to summon a meeting and agree on a unanimous response. “Whatever their opinion was, it is equally important,” he added.

The chief justice then remarked, “If the goal is the same… there is no controversial or political matter […] surely you both would be standing on the same side.”

Reading out an excerpt of the IHC judges’ letter pertaining to the SJC, the PBC lawyer said that the “segment may be referred to the SJC in order to provide guidance and some appropriate amendments may be made to the code of conduct for judges regarding their interactions with the executive in such circumstances”.

Noting the allegations in the letter regarding secret camera in a judge’s house, the counsel said the alleged offences fall within the scope of criminal offences.

The PBC suggested the formation of a judicial commission comprising of one or more sitting judges to probe the matter to “thoroughly investigate the allegations and fix responsibility”.

Contents of letter by IHC judges

Dated March 25, the letter was signed by IHC Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.

It had mentioned seven instances of alleged interference and intimidation “to influence the outcome of cases of interest” by the intelligence officials, pointing out that when two out of three judges in the bench hearing the plea to disqualify PTI leader Imran Khan for concealing his alleged daughter opined that the case was not maintainable, they were pressured by “operatives of the ISI” through friends and relatives.

The situation got so stressful that one of the judges had to be admitted to hospital due to high blood pressure, the letter said.

According to the six judges, the matter had been brought to the notice of the IHC chief justice and the then-CJP. The former informed the judges that he had “spoken to the DG-C of ISI and had been assured that no official from ISI will approach the judges of the IHC”.

The letter had complained that “interference on the part of intelligence operatives” continued even after IHC CJ’s assurance.

It also referred to the abduction of an IHC judge’s brother-in-law by armed men who claimed to be ISI operatives. The victim was “administered electric shocks” and “forced to record a video” making false allegations, apparently against the judge.

“Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the judge of IHC before the SJC, accompanied by an orchestrated media campaign to bring pressure to bear upon the judge to resign.”

The letter had revealed that in May 2023, an IHC inspection judge reported to the chief justice that district court judges were being intimidated and crackers were thrown into the house of one additional district and sessions judge.

The judge was even called to the IHC to verify the claims which he confirmed. But instead of probing the allegations, the judge “was made officer on special duty and transferred to IHC, before being sent back to Punjab as he was a judicial officer on deputation”.

The letter had said that last year, during routine maintenance, an IHC judge found that his official residence had been bugged with spy cameras concealed in his drawing room and bedroom.

When data from surveillance equipment was recovered, it showed that “private videos of the judge and his family members” were stored. “The matter was brought to the attention of the IHC chief justice. There has been no determination of who installed the equipment and who is to be held accountable,” the letter added.

Along with their letter to the SJC, the six judges had also attached copies of letters written to Justice Farooq on May 10, 2023 and Feb 12, 2024.

The letters mentioned, among other complaints, efforts of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) personnel to pressurise IHC judges and probe into the tax records of at least one judge “to seek a certain outcome”.

They added that it was imperative to determine whether there was a “policy on the part of the executive … implemented by intelligence operatives” to intimidate judges.

“[The] allegations of interference by operatives of ISI have been dealt with and relief has been granted to a former judge of IHC who was wronged. We believe that while such action was necessary, it may not be sufficient,” the letter said about Justice Siddiqui’s case.

The judges had noted that the SJC’s code of conduct for judges did not outline the response to such incidents “that are tantamount to intimidation and interfere with judicial independence”.

They had called for a judicial convention to discuss the interference of intelligence officials “that undermines independence of the judiciary”.

The consultation would help the Supreme Court to determine a course of action that judges could take “when they find themselves at the receiving end”, the letter had said.

SOURCE: DAWN

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The federal government on Tuesday disputed the contents of a leaked letter, purportedly penned by Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) Justice Babar Sattar, in which it was alleged that security agencies used “intimidatory tactics” in a case pertaining to audio leaks being heard by the high court.

Earlier today, a snippet from a leaked letter allegedly attributed to the high court judge circulated on social media, with the PTI saying it highlighted “interference in audio leak case”.

The snippet stated that in the audio leaks case, the IHC had put on notice the heads of state intelligence agencies and institutions, ministries and media regulators.

“The question before the court is whether there exists a legal regime permitting surveillance of citizens,” said the letter addressed to the IHC chief justice. “At some point during the hearing of the case, I was delivered messages on behalf of top officials in the security establishment asking me to ‘back-off’ from extensive scrutiny of the existence and mode of surveillance.

“I paid no heed to such intimidatory tactics and did not find that such messages created a risk of substantial detriment to the administration of justice. The current malicious campaign’s focus on cases involving PTA (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority) appears to be an intimidatory tactic to influence court proceedings.”

The development comes amid proceedings underway in the IHC on alleged audio leaks and a separate case on contempt proceedings on a social media campaign targeting the judge, as well as suo motu proceedings in the apex court on alleged interference by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.

Addressing a press conference in Islamabad on the matter, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, without naming Justice Sattar, said the contents of the letter from an IHC judge to IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had surfaced, saying that it was an “internal communication” of the court.

“The contents of that letter are being reported in such a way and the impression is being given as if there is interference in the IHC and that a message was sent to that judge regarding a specific case, or he understood it this way, or it was sent from such an individual which it should have not.”

The AGP said he felt it necessary to provide an explanation on the matter, saying that the judge himself said in the leaked snippet that he did not feel intimidated with the message, “however he understood it”, to be an act of interference in the principles of justice.

“His (the judge) reference in the letter was to the social media campaign [against him]. But because this is a matter that is now out in the media, I, as the AGP, felt it necessary to explain the matter because a perception is being created that there is some breakdown in relations between the judiciary and the executive because of which the issue is moving forward.”

The AGP said there were some “sensitive matters” of the state where it was necessary to have communication between different institutions. He added that it was the AGP’s office or the provincial advocate generals who forwarded such communication.

“I should make it clear regarding this case that a request was made that the briefing regarding our capability on surveillance and other matters about national security, internal and external, be made in-camera so it (the capabilities of security agencies) does not go into the public domain.”

He said that for a country such as Pakistan that has hostile neighbours, it was necessary to ensure that such information was not made public.

“A communication certainly happened but what unfortunately occurred was that the impression was somehow sent or understood as if the case should be taken in a particular direction. There was absolutely nothing of this sort.”

The AGP said his office and the advocate generals functioned as bridges for “legitimate” requests between institutions, adding that neither the government nor any other state institution could interfere in the matters of judiciary.

“I completely reject this perception.”

The AGP added that as per his information, no official from any security institution had made such kind of direct contact and nor could they do so, saying that it was his own office that had initiated the contact to request that sensitive information be shared in in-camera hearings only.

He called on the media to present the “proper context” of the letter.

Source: Dawn News

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Will CJ and SC take stringent actions against him?
=====
The Supreme Court on Thursday fixed a case for contempt proceedings against independent Senator Faisal Vawda for May 17.

The case will be heard by a three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Irfan Saadat Khan at 9am.

The advocate on record will be Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan.

The development comes a day after Vawda questioned judges about their allegation of interference in judicial matters by intelligence agencies, saying that without evidence no one had the right to raise a finger at institutions.

In late March, six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges — out of a total strength of eight — wrote a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council members, regarding attempts to pressure judges through the abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes.

Meanwhile, in a letter written to IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on the breach of his family’s personal data, Justice Babar Sattar had said that while hearing the audio leaks case, he issued notices to the heads of intelligence and investigation agencies, besides relevant ministries.

“At some point during the hearing of the case, I was delivered messages on behalf of top officials in the security establishment asking me to ‘back off’ from extensive scrutiny of the existence and mode of surveillance,” the judge had said.

In his press conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday, Vawda came down hard on the judiciary while addressing the media. He had said the country’s judicial history was not up to the mark and institutions should not be targeted.

During his press conference, Vawda had said that the trend of targeting institutions should be stopped.

He had said why Justice Sattar had raised his voice “one year after the alleged interference”, adding that if the IHC judges had any evidence they should come forward. “We will stand with you”.

Source: Dawn News

 

[Bewal Express]

Will CJ and SC take stringent actions against him?
=====
The Supreme Court on Thursday fixed a case for contempt proceedings against independent Senator Faisal Vawda for May 17.

The case will be heard by a three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Irfan Saadat Khan at 9am.

The advocate on record will be Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan.

The development comes a day after Vawda questioned judges about their allegation of interference in judicial matters by intelligence agencies, saying that without evidence no one had the right to raise a finger at institutions.

In late March, six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges — out of a total strength of eight — wrote a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council members, regarding attempts to pressure judges through the abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes.

Meanwhile, in a letter written to IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on the breach of his family’s personal data, Justice Babar Sattar had said that while hearing the audio leaks case, he issued notices to the heads of intelligence and investigation agencies, besides relevant ministries.

“At some point during the hearing of the case, I was delivered messages on behalf of top officials in the security establishment asking me to ‘back off’ from extensive scrutiny of the existence and mode of surveillance,” the judge had said.

In his press conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday, Vawda came down hard on the judiciary while addressing the media. He had said the country’s judicial history was not up to the mark and institutions should not be targeted.

During his press conference, Vawda had said that the trend of targeting institutions should be stopped.

He had said why Justice Sattar had raised his voice “one year after the alleged interference”, adding that if the IHC judges had any evidence they should come forward. “We will stand with you”.

Source: Dawn News

It will be some topi drama to make Qazi look like he is on the side of the judges. Qazi can't even move without permission

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Inappropriate of judiciary to label a senator as ‘agent of someone’: law minister

Amid renewed spirited debate in Parliament’s upper house over the judiciary and contempt of court, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Wednesday called for the matter regarding the conduct of judges to be sent to the Senate Secretariat so that a report could be prepared for future course of action.

The Senate session today devolved into a continuation of Tuesday’s session that saw multiple lawmakers use their privilege as parliamentarians to assail the conduct of judges, with Senator Faisal Vawda moving a privilege motion against a sitting Supreme Court judge despite the issuance of contempt notices to pliable politicians who had criticised the judiciary for its supposed failings.

During a hearing last week, Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court had taken exception to remarks passed by Vawda against the judiciary in a recent press conference, regretting that judges were being threatened through “proxies”.

In response, the independently elected senator, who is under contempt notice from the SC, said the judge’s remarks “damaged not only his integrity but that of the house too”.

Vawda had claimed the judge labelled him a proxy without any evidence, adding that the term was used out of prejudice and bias against him.

Source: Dawn News

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The agencies are still nagging the judges

https://twitter.com/x/status/1800927774523474272

 

[BouncerGuy]

Establishment’s 'interference' in judiciary to end soon: LHC CJ

The Chief Justice of Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed, stated that the establishment's interference in the judiciary will soon come to an end.

Speaking at an event in Rawalpindi on Friday, the CJ highlighted his immediate actions upon assuming office. "I convened a full court meeting and decided that the culture of strikes would not be tolerated. On May 13, a circular was issued to the Punjab judiciary, stating that we would not acknowledge any calls for strikes. Whether there is a strike call or not, we will act according to the law," he said.

On April 24, IHC judges unanimously acknowledged that intelligence agencies were “interfering” in their judicial functions.

Justice Ahmed praised the majority of the legal community, noting that "90% of the lawyers are good people."

He revealed that over 200,000 cases were filed in Punjab, and more than 300,000 cases were resolved, significantly reducing the backlog of pending cases.

Addressing the issue of establishment interference, he referred to historical instances starting with the Maulvi Tamizuddin case. "Institutions involved in these interferences are better left unnamed. However, the judiciary is currently performing its duties without pressure," he asserted.

He shared an inspiring story of a district judge who stood firm against such interference, saying, "I am not afraid; I will deliver justice without bias."

This judge's courage, Justice Ahmed remarked, made him feel "immensely proud."

He also addressed the concerns of district judges who reported attempts at blackmail and interference.

He encouraged them not to succumb to such pressures, believing that divine guidance would support them. "The end of establishment interference in the judiciary is part of my faith," he concluded.

EXPRESS TRIBUNE

 

[FearlessRoar]

Petition filed against LHC CJ over misconduct allegations​

A petition has been filed against Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), seeking his dismissal over allegations of misconduct.

The petitioner, Rafaqat Ali Tanoli, accused the Chief Justice of obstructing justice in the murder case of his son, alleging misuse of office and influence. Tanoli's complaint, filed via mail on May 29 references a road accident and asserts that Justice Malik exerted his influence in the criminal case.

A related case is also currently under review in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), adding to the judicial scrutiny faced by the LHC Chief Justice.

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan has approved the nomination of LHC CJ Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan as an SC judge by a majority of five to four.

The Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment has also approved his nomination. The notification for his appointment is likely to be issued soon after Eidul Azha.

Yesterday, CJ Shahzad said the establishment’s meddling in the affairs of the judiciary is coming to an end as the judiciary delivers justice without fear or greed.

Justice Khan noted that this was not the only complaint received by him about alleged interference of the executive in judicial matters. “A number of judges have made similar complaints verbally,” he said.

Petition filed against LHC CJ over misconduct allegations | The Express Tribune

Petitioner alleges Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan for obstructing justice in murder case of his son

tribune.com.pk

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice (CJ) Malik Shahzad Ahmad on Thursday said that state departments are causing serious threats to and harassing the courts and their staff, along with creating hurdles in procedures

The chief justice’s remarks were made in the written order for a case on the alleged threats to a judge of a Sargodha anti-terrorism court (ATC) and his harassment by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Last week, CJ Ahmad had summoned Punjab Inspector General of Police (IGP) Usman Anwar and other officials on the complaint.

The LHC registrar office had received a special report on June 7 from District & Sessions Judge (DSJ) Muhammad Abbas, wherein he said that on May 25 — the first day of his new charge as Sargodha ATC judge — a message was conveyed to him that some authority of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) wanted to meet him in his chamber.

Upon refusing to meet the said authority, DSJ Abbas alleged that ever since then, he had been encountering various incidents, such as firing outside his ATC and questioning from family members, among others.

CJ Ahmad had reserved his verdict in the matter on June 13. The verdict was announced in today’s hearing.

The written order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, said: “It is unfortunate to note that it is duty of the state to provide protection and pay respect to the courts but perusal of the special reports sent by the learned judge ATC Sargodha and assistant of the said court shows that prima facie the state departments have been causing serious threats/harassment to the courts and its staff and creating hurdles in the court process.

“Furthermore, the state departments have denied the constitutional rights of citizens of this country of having the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with the law while restraining them to approach the above-mentioned court.”

The order termed the Punjab police chief’s report in the matter “highly unsatisfactory”, saying that it did not mention whether any ISI official was approached by the police to verify the ATC judge’s allegations against the agency.

In one of many examples cited in the order about police and state departments impeding the work of the judges, LHC chief justice said that 12 transfer applications were filed by the Punjab prosecutor general for the transfer of cases from Rawalpindi ATC-1.

“In the said transfer applications, it was main ground of the prosecution branch that as a reference/complaint has been filed against the judge of the abovementioned court, therefore, the cases pending in his court may be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction.

“While arguing the said transfer applications learned prosecutor general Punjab repeatedly referred to the reference filed against the abovementioned judicial officer, in order to establish that sufficient material was available on the record of said reference to show the malafide and biasness of the abovementioned judicial officer, therefore, file of the said reference/complaint was summoned from the office.

“Perusal of the file of the reference/complaint shows that a reply was requisitioned from the abovementioned judicial officer and in his reply the learned judge ATC-1, Rawalpindi pointed out different incidents to establish that in fact the intelligence agencies and jail authorities have been trying to hamper the court process in a jail trial of May 9, 2023, case bearing FIR No. 2106/23.

“The accused arrested in the case fixed before his court were not produced before him and he had to mark their attendance in the barracks of the jail. Likewise, the accused, who were on bail were not allowed to enter the jail premises and he had to mark their attendance on the running road situated outside the jail building. Similarly, the lawyers who have been engaged by the accused to defend their cases were also not allowed to enter the jail premises to conduct the trial.

Source: Dawn News

 

[FearlessRoar]

LHC orders PMO to stop agencies from interacting with judges​

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has instructed the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to issue directives to all civil and military agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), prohibiting them from contacting or approaching "any judge" or their staff.

Justice Shahid Karim issued five SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) in a written order which surfaced on Saturday, in response to a complaint lodged by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) judge in Sargodha.

The judge alleged harassment after reportedly declining to meet officials from an intelligence agency.

Former LHC Chief Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had taken notice of the judge's complaint, filed through the registrar, and initiated proceedings. Justice Karim assumed jurisdiction over the case after Chief Justice Khan was appointed to the Supreme Court.

During a previous hearing, Justice Karim had observed that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif bore responsibility and accountability for the actions of intelligence agencies, which fell under his authority.

In a written order dated June 27, the judge noted that it was “imperative” to proceed on certain issues that “regularly come before this court” and regarding which “directions are necessary to be issued in order to protect the independence of the judiciary”.

“Instructions shall go out by the Prime Minister’s Office to all civil or military agencies including the Intelligence Bureau as well as Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) regarding strict directions not to approach or contact any judge whether of the superior judiciary or sub-ordinate judiciary or any member of their staff in future,” he ordered subsequently.

Similar directions were also issued for the Punjab police.

The order further wrote “Likewise, instructions shall be issued by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab to all police officers […] not to contact directly any judge of superior judiciary or the sub-ordinate judiciary regarding the merits of any pending judicial proceedings before these courts.”

The judge emphasized that actions concerning the security of ATCs throughout Punjab would solely be implemented "with the consultation and agreement of the respected judge of that court and not otherwise". He cautioned that the inspector general and police chief would be "held personally accountable" and face contempt proceedings if they disregarded the directive.

Justice Karim further instructed ATC judges throughout Punjab to install call-recording apps on their mobile phones. He wrote ““[They] shall be bound to record all such calls which they receive and with regard to which the learned judges have apprehension that they have been made to influence any judicial proceedings before them.”

The judges’ order also wrote “A direction is issued to the judges of ATCs across Punjab to deal and decide the cases relating to May 9, 2023, expeditiously and on priority.”

The LHC also ordered the ATC judge in Sargodha and the court staff to collaborate in the investigation as it said “All investigation proceedings should be video recorded and the record shall be maintained by the police as also remitted to this court through the registrar.”

The order concluded that the proceedings were adjourned till July 8.

The issue stemmed from when the Sargodha ATC judge on his first day in charge on June 7 complained that he was informed that someone claiming to represent the ISI wanted to meet him in his office.

The judge stated that he immediately turned down the request.

Since then, he detailed several instances of harassment aimed at his family. These included tampering with the gas meter outside his official residence in Bahawalpur, where he worked before being transferred to Sargodha.

Additionally, he mentioned that his family received an unusually high electricity bill for the previous month, which he believed to be fake. He suspected the possibility of collusion between the power company and members of the intelligence agency.

The judicial officer also reported that unknown individuals had teased his relatives by disclosing personal information about him.

LHC orders PMO to stop agencies from interacting with judges | The Express Tribune

Justice Shahid Karim issued 5-point SOPs to prevent interference in the judiciary

tribune.com.pk

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The Supreme Court on Monday suspended the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) orders in the audio leaks case related to Bushra Bibi, wife of former premier Imran Khan, and Najam Saqib, the son of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar

During a hearing today, conducted by a two-member bench comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, the top court restrained the IHC from taking any further action in the audio leaks case and declared that the orders it issued on May 29 and June 25 were beyond its ambit.

On May 29, IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar had barred telecom companies from recording phone calls and data for surveillance purposes.

The court had issued the direction: “Till the next date of hearing the intelligence agencies, including, inter alia, the ISI and IB, and police authorities will not surveil any citizens, except in accordance with requirements of the Fair Trial Act and warrants duly issued by a judge of the high court, and neither PTA nor the telecom companies shall authorise the use of their services or equipment for purposes of any surveillance or interception of phone calls or data.”

The order had virtually handicapped the intelligence and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in probing crimes and terrorist monitoring as the court stopped cellular companies from sharing citizens’ data with agencies.

On June 25, the IHC had reserved its verdict on the Islamabad police’s request to allow surveillance of suspects.

In a subsequent verdict, the IHC had allowed cellular companies to share with police data related to suspects for investigation in the post-crime scenario, restraining telecom operators from facilitating LEAs with surveillance.

The verdict also noted that telecom companies operating in Pakistan were running a mass surveillance system that “enables interception of data and records of telecom customers” without any regulatory mechanism or legal procedures, on the PTA’s orders.

Justice Sattar had earlier dismissed multiple petitions from different authorities requesting that he recuse himself from the case.

“The IHC’s orders of May 29 and June 25 are beyond its authority,” the SC ruled today, adding that the court was “not authorised to take suo moto notices”.

The SC issued notices to Bushra Bibi and Najam Saqib and also sought records of the audio leaks case at the request of the federal government.

Justice Khan asked Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal whether the IHC had determined who was recording the audio, to which the latter affirmed in the negative and said the investigation was still ongoing.

“Unfortunately in this country, no one wants to get to the truth,” Justice Afghan lamented.

Source: Dawn News

 

[Bewal Express]

The Supreme Court on Monday suspended the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) orders in the audio leaks case related to Bushra Bibi, wife of former premier Imran Khan, and Najam Saqib, the son of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar

During a hearing today, conducted by a two-member bench comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, the top court restrained the IHC from taking any further action in the audio leaks case and declared that the orders it issued on May 29 and June 25 were beyond its ambit.

On May 29, IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar had barred telecom companies from recording phone calls and data for surveillance purposes.

The court had issued the direction: “Till the next date of hearing the intelligence agencies, including, inter alia, the ISI and IB, and police authorities will not surveil any citizens, except in accordance with requirements of the Fair Trial Act and warrants duly issued by a judge of the high court, and neither PTA nor the telecom companies shall authorise the use of their services or equipment for purposes of any surveillance or interception of phone calls or data.”

The order had virtually handicapped the intelligence and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in probing crimes and terrorist monitoring as the court stopped cellular companies from sharing citizens’ data with agencies.

On June 25, the IHC had reserved its verdict on the Islamabad police’s request to allow surveillance of suspects.

In a subsequent verdict, the IHC had allowed cellular companies to share with police data related to suspects for investigation in the post-crime scenario, restraining telecom operators from facilitating LEAs with surveillance.

The verdict also noted that telecom companies operating in Pakistan were running a mass surveillance system that “enables interception of data and records of telecom customers” without any regulatory mechanism or legal procedures, on the PTA’s orders.

Justice Sattar had earlier dismissed multiple petitions from different authorities requesting that he recuse himself from the case.

“The IHC’s orders of May 29 and June 25 are beyond its authority,” the SC ruled today, adding that the court was “not authorised to take suo moto notices”.

The SC issued notices to Bushra Bibi and Najam Saqib and also sought records of the audio leaks case at the request of the federal government.

Justice Khan asked Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal whether the IHC had determined who was recording the audio, to which the latter affirmed in the negative and said the investigation was still ongoing.

“Unfortunately in this country, no one wants to get to the truth,” Justice Afghan lamented.

Source: Dawn News

So these 2 corrupt judges have legalised phone tapping for political purposes. This SC and particularly the Qazi group judges here have totally destroyed any semblance of justice.IA Qazi will face his day in court for defeating justice in PK

 

[The Bald Eagle]

SHC declares cancellation of IHC Judge Jahangiri’s law degree by KU ‘null and void’

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Thursday suspended Karachi University’s (KU) decision to revoke the law degree of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, ruling in his favour as the court found that the university’s syndicate had taken the action in his absence depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself.

In its written order, the court ruled that the degree of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge was cancelled by KU’s Syndicate and Unfair Means Committee during a meeting where the judge was not present, stating that it was a “violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution” (the right to a fair trial).

“Unfortunately, no opportunity of hearing was extended to Mr Justice Tariq Mahmood Jehangiri and the manner so adopted appears to be highly objectionable, illegal … and without lawful authority,” the court ruled.

The controversy erupted in July when a letter began circulating on social media purportedly from the KU controller of examinations regarding Justice Jahangiri’s law degree.

Last week, the issue resurfaced when the KU syndicate cancelled the degree and enrolment of Jahangiri, who obtained his LLB degree in 1991 under enrolment number 5968.

The decision came a few hours after the detention of academic and syndicate member Dr Riaz Ahmed, who was picked up by police in what appeared to be an attempt to stop him from attending the key meeting. He was released in the evening only after the syndicate decided to cancel the degree.

The petition filed with the SHC, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, argued that Justice Jahangiri was “singularly targeted, with extreme mala fide intention, according to a premeditated and conceived plan to tarnish the reputation and destroy the reputation of the honourable judge of the Islamabad High Court”.

It added that Jahangiri “was one out of the six honourable judges of the IHC who in their letter dated 25.03.2024 informed the honourable chief justice of Pakistan about the alleged interference by intelligence operatives in judicial matters”.

The petition also argued that Jahangiri was absent at the syndicate meeting and not called in person nor provided representation, thus making the decision to cancel the degree illegal.

Jahangiri’s counsel argued that KU’s Unfair Means Committee was “formed illegally and not in accordance with the Rules of Respondent No.4, therefore at the very inception the formation was void, illegal and illicit”, rendering any of its recommendations void and illegal.

The court ruled that the degree was cancelled “without hearing and by violating the basic settled principle of law”, adding that the petitioners’ claims “carry substantial weight”.

As Justice Jahangiri was not present at the syndicate’s meeting, he was “condemned unheard” and the decision was “null and void.”

The court added that under Article 199 (the jurisdiction of the High Court), it has the power to order any institution to “refrain from doing anything that is not permitted by law to do”. It ordered KU against taking “any coercive measures based on these decisions” until the date of the next hearing.

The SHC ordered that notices be dispatched to all respondents, including the Sindh attorney general, requesting responses within three weeks.

The hearing
A two-member bench, comprising SHC Justices Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Amjad Ali Sahito, heard the case today.

“Whose degree is it?” Justice Panhwar asked. “How many decisions of this nature has the university made?”

The advocate responded by stating that KU had acted in a “non-transparent manner”.

When asked by the judge about when the degree was awarded, he replied that it was conferred 30 years ago.

Justice Panhwar asked, “On whose request has all this happened? On whose complaint has action been taken? The letter was sent by the Islamia Law College,” he added.

Asked by Justice Sahito about the relation of the petitioners to the case, the advocates responded that it had been filed by lawyers and added that KU does not have the authority to make such decisions.

“Only the Judicial Commission can make such decisions,” the advocate stated.

One of the advocates spoke about the detention of Dr Riaz Ahmed, upon which Justice Sahito told them, “Do not talk about politics here.”

He added that if someone’s degree was being cancelled, then “he should be called and given notice”.

Source: Dawn News

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice has approved a proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from the current count to 25, including one Chief Justice and 24 judges

The committee members debated on the rational to increase judges’ number in the apex court as there treasury benches members advocated need for additional judges to manage the high case backlog in the Supreme Court.

Senator Hamid Khan and Senator Kamran Murtaza opposed the increase, with Senator Murtaza arguing that recent vacancies were strategic and that the Supreme Court should be consulted on the necessity of more judges.

Senator Hamid Khan raised concerns over financial constraints and suggested focusing on the efficiency of existing resources, particularly as Pakistan faces economic challenges.

On the other hand, Senator Shahadat Awan voiced strong support, noting that with an estimated 60,000 pending cases, at least 21 judges are essential.

Senator Abdul Qadir further argued that Pakistan’s growing population and rising crime rates necessitate a larger judiciary, pointing out that the current number of judges remains unchanged since 1995. He highlighted that vacancies persist in the provincial high courts as well.

The 26th constitutional amendment and international comparisons were also discussed, with committee members contrasting Pakistan’s judicial system with those of countries like England, Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia.

The committee approved the proposal, with the Chairman affirming that the increase aims to address Pakistan’s mounting legal caseload, though disagreements remain on its long-term implications.

Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance

The Senate has introduced the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance 2024, which has been referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

The ordinance already in effect includes significant amendments aimed at enhancing judicial procedures.

A key provision adds a sub-clause to Section-II of the Practice and Procedure Act, mandating the inclusion of one senior judge and one judge nominated by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in relevant committees.

Moreover, the ordinance stipulates that public interest reasons must be provided before any hearings on matters, alongside provisions for prioritizing cases based on their filing order.

Additionally, the ordinance introduces sections 7A and 7B, ensuring that cases filed first are heard first and requiring documentation for all court cases and appeals.

In a related incident, during the Diwali celebrations, Chief Minister of Punjab, Maryam Nawaz, was hailed as a leader by minority member Dinesh Kumar, leading to a clash with Senator Humayun Mohmand, who suggested she sit on the government benches.

Dinesh Kumar expressed his allegiance to Maryam Nawaz, highlighting the growing political dynamics within the assembly.

Senator Talal Chaudhry also criticized Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur for welcoming arrested Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government employees with flowers, further intensifying the political atmosphere.

Additionally, a Senate Standing Committee meeting addressed a proposed bill to reuire a graduation qualification for assembly members. The bill's historical context was brought to light, with references to former President Pervez Musharraf's intentions to block Benazir Bhutto's path to Parliament. The discussion was postponed due to the absence of Senator Samina Mumtaz Zehri, leaving further deliberation on these critical issues pending.

Source: Samaa News

 

[Bewal Express]

Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice has approved a proposal to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from the current count to 25, including one Chief Justice and 24 judges

The committee members debated on the rational to increase judges’ number in the apex court as there treasury benches members advocated need for additional judges to manage the high case backlog in the Supreme Court.

Senator Hamid Khan and Senator Kamran Murtaza opposed the increase, with Senator Murtaza arguing that recent vacancies were strategic and that the Supreme Court should be consulted on the necessity of more judges.

Senator Hamid Khan raised concerns over financial constraints and suggested focusing on the efficiency of existing resources, particularly as Pakistan faces economic challenges.

On the other hand, Senator Shahadat Awan voiced strong support, noting that with an estimated 60,000 pending cases, at least 21 judges are essential.

Senator Abdul Qadir further argued that Pakistan’s growing population and rising crime rates necessitate a larger judiciary, pointing out that the current number of judges remains unchanged since 1995. He highlighted that vacancies persist in the provincial high courts as well.

The 26th constitutional amendment and international comparisons were also discussed, with committee members contrasting Pakistan’s judicial system with those of countries like England, Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia.

The committee approved the proposal, with the Chairman affirming that the increase aims to address Pakistan’s mounting legal caseload, though disagreements remain on its long-term implications.

Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance

The Senate has introduced the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance 2024, which has been referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

The ordinance already in effect includes significant amendments aimed at enhancing judicial procedures.

A key provision adds a sub-clause to Section-II of the Practice and Procedure Act, mandating the inclusion of one senior judge and one judge nominated by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in relevant committees.

Moreover, the ordinance stipulates that public interest reasons must be provided before any hearings on matters, alongside provisions for prioritizing cases based on their filing order.

Additionally, the ordinance introduces sections 7A and 7B, ensuring that cases filed first are heard first and requiring documentation for all court cases and appeals.

In a related incident, during the Diwali celebrations, Chief Minister of Punjab, Maryam Nawaz, was hailed as a leader by minority member Dinesh Kumar, leading to a clash with Senator Humayun Mohmand, who suggested she sit on the government benches.

Dinesh Kumar expressed his allegiance to Maryam Nawaz, highlighting the growing political dynamics within the assembly.

Senator Talal Chaudhry also criticized Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur for welcoming arrested Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government employees with flowers, further intensifying the political atmosphere.

Additionally, a Senate Standing Committee meeting addressed a proposed bill to reuire a graduation qualification for assembly members. The bill's historical context was brought to light, with references to former President Pervez Musharraf's intentions to block Benazir Bhutto's path to Parliament. The discussion was postponed due to the absence of Senator Samina Mumtaz Zehri, leaving further deliberation on these critical issues pending.

Source: Samaa News

Desperate attempts to keep the form 47 govt intact by controlling the SC. This destruction of the SC by these criminals will never be forgotten. Bilawal destroying the constitution that is his grandfather's greatest achievement.