A petition from judges!
Listen to article
The executive's obsession to 'manage' the superior judiciary is now taking a toll on the rule of law. The unrest prevalent among senior judges, who are being denied their right of promotion as per law and the Constitution, is highly unfortunate. Regrettable, they are not being heard. This injustice against the Justices themselves is squarely evident at the Supreme Court as well as the IHC, as the controversial 26th amendment has been used as a ploy to supersede judges on the premise of the plausible leaning of the junior jurors with the government of the day.
Another letter from five senior most IHC judges has once again laid bare the arm-twisting by the executive. The judges have openly questioned the rationale behind the transfer of three judges to the IHC from other High Courts and the out-of-turn elevation of Justice Sarfraz Dogar as IHC's senior puisne judge. The letter, addressed to the Supreme Court, has also been converted into a petition, wherein the five IHC judges have prayed that the "president does not have unfettered and unbridled discretion to transfer judges from one high court to another, under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, without a manifest public interest, and in a manner that hampers the principles of independence of judiciary and separation of powers."
Will the contents of this letter be heard by the Chief Justice and the Constitutional Bench? Or will this letter also be buried beneath the carpet as has been the case with an earlier letter from six IHC judges who complained against "blatant interference in their domain"? What cannot, however, be denied is the fact that these incursions from the executive have created an atmosphere of cooption and coercion, which is detrimental not only to the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution but is also in contravention of the independence of judiciary.
This condemnable convention of sidelining eligible judges, and undermining stipulated norms of the Constitution is disgusting and must be shunned. The prevailing discontent among judges must be addressed instantly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours 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
19 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Ministry of Law and Justice: Rs1,912.481m earmarked for 10 schemes
ISLAMABAD: The federal government has earmarked Rs 1,912.481 million for seven ongoing and three new schemes of the Ministry of Law and Justice under the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) for the fiscal year 2025-26. The budget document showed an increase of 41 percent in funds allocated for various schemes of the Ministry of Law and Justice. As per the budgetary documents, the government allocated Rs 1,696.481 million for ongoing schemes, which include Rs 170 million for automation of federal courts/tribunals phase-II; Rs 27 million for archiving and digitalising of legislations and record of the Ministry of Law and Justice; Rs 201.785 million for the construction of legal facilitation centre, Islamabad High Court (IHC); Rs 19.325 million for strengthening of Planning and Monitoring Unit in the Ministry of Law and Justice; Rs 30 million for construction of new building for Supreme Court, Branch Registry at Karachi; Rs110 million for strengthening and capacity enhancement of legal wings of Ministry of Law and Justice and federal ministries/divisions, Islamabad, and Rs 1,138.371 million for construction of litigants facilitation centre for litigants of District Court in Islamabad. 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
