Who will have a more disputed, tainted and despicable legacy: Justice Munir, Qazi Faez Isa or Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary?

Who has a more controversial and tainted legacy?


  • Total voters
    18
A six-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, dismissed a review petition challenging the appointment of Qazi Faez Isa as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court

The case, filed by Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi, contended that Isa was appointed as chief justice directly without first serving as a judge, which he argued violated established procedure. He also claimed that the then chief minister of Balochistan had not forwarded an official summary of Isa’s appointment.

"No one can be directly appointed as chief justice,” the petitioner argued.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel stated that a review application does not permit reopening of the original case and asserted that the constitutional bench was not an appellate body for previous court decisions.

"This case seems less legal and more political," remarked Justice Musarrat Hilali, advising against targeting individuals personally in legal petitions, asking the petitioner to leave Justice Isa alone. She added, “There’s no point in dissing someone behind their back.”

Justice Mandokhel also questioned why the petitioner's case should not be sent to the bar council for filing a frivolous case. "This is a review petition, the case cannot be reopened," he stated. Advocate Rahi argued that the Supreme Court had also reopened the Bhutto judicial murder case after 40 years.

“Why don't you answer the court’s questions?” inquired Justice Aminuddin. Rahi told the court he was merely stating facts, adding that he did not have the record of the case, but it could be sought from Balochistan.

Justice Aminuddin asked for referring to the law that mandates consultation with the chief minister. The court dismissed Rahi’s petition and declined to issue further orders for procedural inquiries.

The Supreme Court’s six-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard 18 cases in just an hour and a half in its first sitting on Thursday, disposed of 16 of them, issued a re-hearing notice in another and sought a report in one case.

It also issued fines of Rs20,000 each on three frivolous applicants.

Source: Samaa News
 

SC removes Justice Ayesha Malik from military courts appeal bench​


A three-member constitutional committee of the Supreme Court has removed Justice Ayesha Malik from the seven-member constitutional bench hearing intra-court appeals regarding the May 9 military court trials.

The third meeting of the constitutional committee, chaired by Justice Aminuddin Khan and attended by Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, reviewed the scheduling of cases related to civilian trials in military courts.

Meeting minutes revealed that Justice Ayesha Malik had already heard the May 9 military courts case, and the pending appeal will now be heard by a reconstituted seven-member bench. The matter of military courts has been referred to the Judicial Commission for nomination of the seventh member.

Key decisions included establishing a separate branch for constitutional cases, introducing "green tagging" for case categorization, and delegating responsibilities to the Registrar for procedural development.

The committee also approved transferring cases under Article 186A between high courts, scheduling five chamber appeals daily, and seeking civil judge assistance to handle increasing workloads.

 
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government has decided not to present a resolution in the provincial assembly for the formation of constitutional courts

Provincial Law Minister Aftab Alam explained that since the provincial government does not recognise the 26th Constitutional Amendment, they cannot accept the formation of constitutional courts under it, Express News reported on Monday.

"If we do not recognise the 26th Constitutional Amendment, how can we agree to the creation of constitutional courts?" he said, adding that the government would not bring such a resolution to the assembly.

The provincial cabinet has also approved this decision, ensuring that no such resolution will be tabled.

Aftab Alam further stated that the opposition, led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), had rejected the 26th Amendment, and the provincial government could not accept it.

He also highlighted the ongoing issues in the K-P Assembly, with the chamber incomplete and certain seats still vacant.

"The assembly is not complete; the decision on reserved seats has not been made, and the Senate elections are also pending," Alam said.

"Given this situation, how can we bring a resolution in an incomplete house?"

This decision comes as part of the province's continuing objections to federal government proposals related to constitutional changes and the setup of new judicial structures.

Few week ago, s senior Punjab official told The Express Tribune that his government is not interested, thus far at least, in establishing constitutional benches. It has been learned that the provincial government is satisfied with the functioning of the LHC.

Unlike in the past, the relationship between the Punjab government and incumbent LHC Chief Justice Alia Neelum is not tense. After the elevation of Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan to the Supreme Court, Anti Terrorism Courts (ATCs) judges have already been transferred by THE incumbent LHC CJ.

By the same token, the Punjab government has not been at loggerheads with its chief justice on any matter. There is also the perception that those judges with a background in criminal law are in the driving seat at the LHC.

However, a senior government official in Punjab states that the provincial government has strong reservations over an interim order in which the Punjab government has been restrained from using its powers, under Section 3 of the Punjab Detention Act, 1960, for one month.

After the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the executive's influence has increased when it comes to appointing judges to superior courts judges. It has been learned that different political functionaries have started working towards inducting their preferred candidates.

The biggest challenge for the judiciary remains in appointing independent judges after the 26th Amendment.

Dozens of judge seats are vacant in each superior court. The number of SC judges has also increased from 17 to 34 and the government wants to appoint two from each province.

A PML-N lawyer claims that the increase of SC judges, and the reduction of the age limit from 45 to 40 years for a high court judge, have been done on PPP's wishes.

Source: The Express Tribune
 
Senior Supreme Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has denied rumours suggesting that he is resigning from his position

Speaking to the media after addressing a ceremony on children's justice, Justice Shah dismissed the claims, labelling them as mere speculation.

When asked by a journalist about the authenticity of the resignation rumours, Justice Shah responded: "I don't know where you got this concern from; these are all assumptions. I am not going anywhere."

He further clarified, "I will continue the work that I can do. I am attending this conference today and will be attending another after this. I will use the authority I have to improve the system as much as possible."

Earlier, while addressing the ceremony on children's rights, Justice Shah emphasised the judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights of children, calling them not just the future, but also the present of the nation.

"Children are a gift from Allah," he said, stressing that the judiciary is aware of the significance of children's rights.

He also conveyed a message to lower court judges, underlining the importance of justice for children. "Public interest cases bring significant improvements," he added. "I always say, come to court. Although I am not part of the constitutional bench, we will listen to you."

Justice Shah’s comments came amidst growing speculation about his future, but his statements reaffirmed his commitment to his duties within the judiciary.

Source: The Express Tribune
 
We can officially welcome Injustice Afridi. Another crook takes over. Where do these shameless people come from. I pray to Allah that one day these thugs are all dragged through the streets for their criminality against a poor country.
 

SC dismisses former judge Mazahar Ali Naqvi's appeal against show-cause notice​


The Supreme Court's constitutional bench has dismissed the appeal filed by former Supreme Court judge Mazahar Ali Naqvi against the show-cause notice issued to him.

A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Ameenuddin, heard Mazahar Ali Naqvi's petition against the Judicial Council's notice to him.

During the hearing, Naqvi's lawyer, Saad Hashmi, stated that he had been unable to contact Mazahar Ali Naqvi and requested more time to communicate with his client and obtain instructions.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that there was nothing new in the case as the decision on the show-cause notice had already been made by the Council.

The court dismissed the petition against the show-cause notice.

 

10 candidates nominated for IHC judges​


The names of 10 candidates nominated for judicial appointments in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have been disclosed ahead of the Judicial Commission meeting scheduled for December 21.

The panel will deliberate on the proposed appointments.

Two nominees have been suggested by the Islamabad High Court Chief Justice including District and Sessions Judges Azam Khan and Shahrukh Arjumand.

Other nominees include Advocate Kashif Ali Malik, recommended by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan; Advocate Syed Qamar Hussain Shah Sabzwari, proposed by Islamabad Bar Council representative Zulfiqar Ali; and Advocate Sultan Mazhar Sher Khan, nominated by senior most judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

Senator Farooq H Naek has recommended four nominees: Qamar Hussain Sabzwari, Umar Aslam Khan, Daniyal Ijaz, and Kashif Ali.

Also, Roshan Khurshid Barocha put forward the name of Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar.

The commission will review these nominations during the upcoming session.

 

Judges appointment: JCP committee head Justice Mandokhail responds to Justice Shah’s letter​


In response to Supreme Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s letter on judges’ appointment, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s rule-making committee head has said that his suggestions have already been incorporated in the draft rules and agreed that judiciary members should be impartial.

“It is important to mention here that incidentally, most of the suggestions/requirements highlighted by you in the letter have already been incorporated in the draft rules, which, I had personally shared with you prior to your letter under reply,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said in a letter on Saturday.

On Friday, senior puisne judge of the SC Justice Shah called on the JCP to finalise “clear and transparent rules” for appointing judges to constitutional courts. In his detailed letter, he warned that any appointments without such a framework would be unconstitutional and could undermine the judiciary’s independence.

It was addressed to Justice Mandokhail. The apex court judge underscored the constitutional obligation under Article 175A(4), which requires the JCP to establish procedures and criteria for assessing and appointing judges. He was concerned that the absence of such rules jeopardises the rule of law, democracy, and public confidence in the judiciary.

Justice Shah also highlighted the “risks” posed by the 26th Constitutional Amendment that allows the executive to have a majority of members within the JCP. He was of the view that such a shift could lead to politically motivated appointments and undermine the ideological commitment of judges to the rule of law.

In his response, Justice Mandokhail mentioned the JCP committee’s two meetings. The committee also includes Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, PTI Senator Syed Ali Zafar, PPP Senator Farooq Hamid Naek, and ASC Akhtar Hussain as members.

It has been tasked to draft rules relating to the regulation of procedure including the procedure and criteria for assessment, evaluation and fitness for appointment of judges under clause (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution.

While mentioning the meetings, the committee’s head said that he had shared suggestions or requirements with him prior to Friday’s letter.

“Please take note that the committee is tasked just to propose the draft rules and to place it before the commission for final approval of the same, in its forthcoming meeting to be held on December 21, 2024,” Justice Mandokhail said.

He suggested his fellow SC judge propose the candidates for their elevation to the Lahore High Court and Islamabad High Court after approval of the rules by the commission.

“I, however, appreciate and welcome your suggestions. Let me make it clear that I am also of a firm view that it is the mandate of the Constitution that the judiciary must be independent and impartial. Members of the judiciary should be competent and honest persons,” Justice Mandokhail said.

For such a purpose, he added that the committee constituted for making the draft rules was committed to evolving the “best mechanism” while framing such rules in order to achieve the desired goal. The SC judge assured Justice Shah that his suggestions would be considered in the next meeting scheduled for December 16 (Monday).

 

SC, chief justices to blame for not fixing appeals on time: Justice Minallah​

The Supreme Court has highlighted systemic shortcomings in addressing appeal hearings for life imprisonment cases, pointing to administrative inefficiencies and judicial delays.

A three-member bench led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel convened to hear an interesting case of Usman, a man sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007 for murdering Yasin in Sheikhupura. Incidentally, Usman’s appeal against the sentence, filed in 2017, has been only scheduled for hearing after he had already served his life term and been released from jail.

The public prosecutor said the accused was acquitted in this case after serving his sentence. Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the accused filed a jail petition against his sentence in 2017.

Justice Athar Minallah openly criticized that successive chief justices since 2017 bear responsibility for failing to schedule Usman’s appeal for hearing.

"The Supreme Court is also administratively responsible for this negligence," Justice Minallah remarked, further stressing that the president, governor, and parliament possess the authority to demand accountability from the judiciary in such cases.

During the proceedings, the court discussed broader issues plaguing the country’s criminal justice system. Justice Minallah highlighted the inadequacy of resources, pointing out that only Rs350 is allocated for investigations in criminal cases. He called for comprehensive reforms in investigation procedures and the overall criminal system to ensure justice for common citizens.

Justice Shahzad Malik raised concerns about the shortage of judges and staff in both the Supreme Court and subordinate judiciary. While he acknowledged the recent increase in the number of Supreme Court judges, he stressed the urgent need for infrastructure development and additional judges in lower courts, including anti-terrorism and special courts, to handle the backlog of cases.

Justice Malik revealed that over 400,000 cases are pending nationwide, with an alarming number attributed to the Lahore High Court. He underscored the pressing need for systemic improvements to resolve these delays efficiently.

During the hearing, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Deputy Advocate General Kausar Ali brought up the attack on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa House in Islamabad, saying the powers lie with someone else. Justice Mandokhel rebuked him, stating, “Do not do politics in the court; these are the cases of common people.” He urged the province to prioritize justice in criminal and service matters rather than political agendas.

The Supreme Court ultimately disposed of Usman’s case, noting that he had already completed his life sentence and been released.

Source: Samaa TV
 

‘State busy in forming and dislodging govts: SC judge Athar Minallah​


Supreme Court's Justice Athar Minallah remarked on Friday that the “state is focused on toppling and bringing governments”, with all institutions targeting political opponents.

The senior SC judge gave these remarks while hearing the bail petition of murder suspect. A three-member bench, headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, heard the murder case.

During the hearing, the top court ordered the immediate arrest of murder suspect Ishaq and directed the SP Supreme Court to hand him over to jail authorities after his bail plea was rejected.

Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the case had been pending in the apex court since 2017 while the state is focused on toppling and bringing governments, with institutions primarily targeting political opponents.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel also commented on the state’s situation, mentioning that three prime ministers had been killed, but there is no clarity on the status of their cases. He also highlighted that even the senior-most judges in Balochistan had been killed without any follow-up.

Justice Athar Minallah added that as long as state institutions remain engaged in political engineering, the country will continue facing such challenges.

Justice Athar Minallah further criticised the failure to take responsibility for the assassination of a prime minister, stating that it took forty years for the crime to be acknowledged, calling the lack of accountability a significant injustice.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel observed that public trust in institutions was dwindling, with people now expecting the Supreme Court to handle all matters.

 
Back
Top