Dissenting judges can be part of 'CB bench'
The lawyer for the petitioners, seeking review of apex court's decision of allotting reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), argued on Wednesday that the judges, who disagreed with the majority, could remain part of the bench.
An 11-member Constitutional Bench (CB), headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review appeals against the Supreme Court's decision on July 12, 2024 in reserved seats case. During the hearing, the lawyer for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) Hamid Khan concluded his arguments.
Earlier this month, a 13-member CB admitted for hearing the review pleas with an 11-2 majority decision. Two members of the bench, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, dismissed the review petitions as inadmissible.
Later, a new cause list was issued, which said that Justice Malik and Justice Abbasi would not be part of the bench for further hearing of the petitions. During Wednesday's hearing, bench member Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked the question whether judges, who disagree, would remain on the bench.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said that the judges, who do not give a decision on the merits, could remain part of the bench. He said in the current scenario, if five more judges say tomorrow that the composition of the bench was not correct, then the majority decision would be a letter of seven judges.
And if an order of the court is signed, the lawyer added, it would be called order of the court.
"There has been such a history that there was no order of the court," he continued. "Judges who do not give a decision on the merits can remain part of the bench."
Makhdoom Ali Khan started arguments after SIC lawyer Hamid Khan completed his arguments on a miscellaneous application regarding live broadcast of the court proceedings. He said that at least there was an example of approval of a pilot project in this regard.
Hamid Khan requested the court to first decide on his application for the live streaming of the proceedings. However, Justice Aminuddin Khan replied that not every application would be decided first. He said that there were more applications also, which would be decided after all were heard.
Hamid Khan also said that there were many petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court. On that Justice Mandokhel asked what was connection between the review appeals and the 26th Amendment.
Hamid Khan said that constitutional benches were formed under the 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Aminuddin told the lawyer that the judges were bound by the Constitution of Pakistan, therefore, the constitutional bench was hearing the case.
After Hamid Khan's arguments, Makhdoom Ali Khan started his arguments. He said that the Supreme Court gave a short order on July 12, 2024, while the filing of the review appeals began July 18. The detailed decision of the apex court was issued on September 23.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
JCP to review tenure of constitutional benches
A crucial meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will be held on June 19 in the Supreme Court building. The meeting will discuss extending the tenure of constitutional benches. The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches. At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Extension of constitutional benches has been proposed for the second time. The federal government on December 21 managed to get its way at the JCP which had rejected a suggestion to nominate all Supreme Court judges to its Constitutional Bench (CB) by a majority vote of 7 to 6. Except Justice Aminuddin, all JCP's judicial members namely CJP Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had voted for all the Supreme Court judges to be part of the CB. Two PTI members Barrister Gahar Ali Khan and Barrister Ali Zafar supported their view. However, the government as well as the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representatives in JCP did not support their suggestion. The judicial members had faced embarrassment, when their own fellow judge, Justice Aminuddin Khan, did not support their suggestion. The JCP by majority 7 to 6 endorsed the extension of the CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan for six months. Once again it is being expected that the government will be successful to get majority votes for the extension of present CB, which performance is under question. There is no objective criteria for the selection of judges for CB. Performance of CB The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment. The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution. Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB. A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous. "It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance. "Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer. He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. 'Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times.' He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment,' he adds.
Business Recorder
18 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Proposed Finance bill moved in Senate
ISLAMABAD: Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, Tuesday, moved a copy of the proposed federal budget in the Senate amidst strong protest by the opposition that dismissed the legislative draft as 'anti-poor.' In the brief Senate sitting, the finance minister laid a copy of the proposed Finance Bill 2025, shortly after presenting it in the National Assembly, in the Senate, in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions, following which, Chairman Senate Yousaf Raza Gilani directed the senators to share their recommendations, if any, on the bill, latest by Thursday, 12 June, 5 pm. The chairman then referred the bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Revenue with the direction to finalise its recommendations on the bill by Friday, 13 June. Amidst continued sloganeering against the proposed federal budget, the chairman Senate adjourned the House till Friday. The Upper House of the Parliament can hold extensive debate on the finance bill and devise recommendations accordingly, but it has no significant role in budgetary legislation, since it is completely up to the National Assembly to either completely or partially accept those recommendations or reject them, partially or completely. Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which deals with parliamentary business with respect to money bills, reads a money bill shall 'originate in the National Assembly: Provided that simultaneously when a money bill, including the finance bill containing the annual budget statement, is presented in the National Assembly, a copy thereof shall be transmitted to the Senate which may, within 14 days, make recommendations thereon to the National Assembly.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
20 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Taxmen get more powers to target unregistered taxpayers
ISLAMABAD: The government, through the Finance Bill 2025-26, has proposed to grant extensive discretionary powers to tax officers and Commissioners to restrict the operations of bank accounts or transfer of immovable property for any individual who fails to register under the Federal Sales Tax Act. Arshad Shehzad, advocate of the Supreme Court, explained that the Finance Bill 2025-2026 intends to add new Sections 14AC, 14AD, and 14AE to the Act in order to promote sales tax registration and enhance economic documentation. According to the explanatory notes from the board, these provisions aim to strengthen enforcement measures, including restrictions on bank account operations, the transfer of immovable property, sealing of business premises, property seizure, and the appointment of a receiver to compel compliance from unregistered individuals. While this initiative appears to be directed at strengthening enforcement, it also bestows excessive discretionary powers upon tax officers. Shehzad argues that a comprehensive mechanism already exists under the law for compulsory registration, penal actions, and the recovery of sales tax, including default surcharges, penalties, and other consequences for non-registration. These additional measures would only grant more discretionary authority to tax officials and may lead to unnecessary conflicts. Shehzad emphasises that the implementation and enforcement of existing laws are far more important than introducing harsh, coercive measures repeatedly. Shehzad suggests that the government should focus on building confidence within the business community, utilising the database of unregistered individuals in a pragmatic manner to integrate new taxpayers into the tax system without creating an atmosphere of harassment. Any measure that create a negative perception among businesses could hinder growth and lead to capital flight; therefore, all such measures that threaten the confidence of businesses and trade should be avoided, he concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
