CB withdraws Shah's Jan 13-16 orders
ISLAMABAD:
A constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court has withdrawn the January 13 and January 16 orders passed by a regular bench with regard to clarification about the jurisdiction of SC's regular and constitutional benches during hearing of a bunch of cases challenging vires of the Custom Act, 1969.
On Tuesday, a seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed hearing the cases which were earlier placed before a three-member regular bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
However, on January 17, the Supreme Court committee that lists cases before benches withdrew the cases from the regular bench and referred them to the CB committee for re-listing.
This irked the regular bench which initiated contempt proceedings against an additional registrar, Nazar Abbas, for violating its order. Later, on January 27, the bench exonerated the official from contempt charges but noted that the SC committees had committed contempt of court.
It also ordered placing the cases once again before the original bench.
However, the seven-member CB to which the case was later listed for hearing withdrew the regular bench's orders dated Jan 13 and Jan 16 on Tuesday.
During the hearing, Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan said the government has decided to challenge the contempt of court decision by Justice Shah led bench.
"An appeal will be filed against the contempt of court decision issued the previous day, and it has been decided to challenge Justice's orders from January 13 and January 16," he said.
During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had ordered the customs duty cases to be placed before his bench. He questioned whether the CB proceedings could continue in the presence of this order.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the legitimacy of the regular's bench's order in the contempt case.
"This is also a court. Life is unpredictable, but the Supreme Court and other courts will remain. We must take care of our institution. No one should worry; nothing will happen to this institution," he added.
Justice Mazhar expressed surprise, saying that the January 16 order said the case should be "considered heard." He questioned the origin of the term, noting that either a case is heard or it is not. "Where did the expression 'considered heard' come from?" he asked.
AGP Awan said he had two orders from January 13. "One specified the next hearing date as January 27, while the other stated January 16. The hearing date had been altered in the order," he said.
Justice Mazhar further said it was unclear how, without serving the AGP a notice under Rule 27-A, it was stated that the case should be considered heard.
Subsequently, the CB issued an order to attach the record of the Nazar Abbas contempt of court case with the customs duty cases and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
One member of the bench, Justice Ayesha Malik, recused herself from hearing the case. In a note issued after the hearing, she stated that she would not like to hear these cases in order to "protect and preserve the sanctity of the original proceedings and the judicial order of January 16".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC to hear ‘PTI's reserved seats case' tomorrow
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court will resume hearing of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) reserved seats case from tomorrow (Monday). It is expected that an 11-member Constitutional Bench, which has been hearing the case since May 6, 2025 will conclude it next week, if the lawyers of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) complete their argument by June 17. Advocates Faisal Siddiqui and Hamid Khan are representing the SIC in this case. Faisal in the last proceedings had assured the bench that he would conclude his submissions in the next hearing. The PML-N, PPP and the ECP have submitted their written arguments. The ECP has contended that as PTI was evidently not party to proceedings before the ECP; therefore no relief could have been lawfully granted to it vide the majority judgement, even by exercising power under Article 187(1) of the Constitution. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who had authored the majority judgment (8 judges), and Justice Munir Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Shahid Waheed, who agreed with Justice Mansoor are not part of the bench, hearing the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The Supreme Court's 11 judges on July 12, 24 ruled that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is a political party and entitled to reserved seats of women and non-Muslims to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the National and the Provincial Assemblies. A Full Court of 13 judges had announced five separate short orders. Eight judges comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan passed one set of order, while Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel released separate note. Similarly, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin ud Din Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote their own independent notes. The order of eight judges had set aside the Peshawar High Court (PHC) judgment and declared the ECP order on reserved seats ultra vires the constitution. They held that the PTI was and is a political party, which secured or won general seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies in the General Elections of 2024. The two judges' order also set aside the PHC judgment to the extent to exclude the PTI for calculation and allocation of reserved seats. They also held that the PTI as a Parliamentary Party is entitled to the reserved seats. Similar stance was taken by Justice Yahya Afridi in dismissing the SIC appeal against the PHC verdict. However, Justice Amin and Justice Afghan simply turned down the SIC appeal and said detailed reasons be recorded later. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
SC highlights defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court highlighted defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, and called for correction/ amendment by the Sindh provincial legislatures for appropriate rectification. The Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, which by virtue of Section 119 of the Act, repealed the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to cooperative societies in the Province of Sindh to facilitate the formation and working of co-operative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help, and mutual aid among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs, so as to bring about better living, better business, and better methods of production. The judgment of two-judge bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, which heard civil petition against the Sindh High Court (SHC) regarding immovable property dispute, noted that instead of providing right of appeal to the High Court in the Act, which is a substantive right, it is provided in the Rules. Furthermore, the nature/ categories of disputes required to be resolved or decided by the Special Court for Cooperatives are also provided in the Rules rather than being defined in the Act with a specific provision to deal with civil disputes, just as offences are properly described in the Act itself without any ambiguity. It stated; Some corrections in the nomenclature of the Act are also required in Section 104 of the Act, which articulates: '(1) No Court other than the Special Court for Cooperative Societies established under section 121 shall try offences under this Chapter and disputes referred to in section 78'. The judgment further noted; 'The Act ends at Section 119 and there is no Section 121 in the Act. While Section 78 is germane to transfer of property which cannot be sold, and the execution of an order sought to be executed under Sections 81 and 82.' The judgment said perhaps due to misprinting or inadvertence, instead of Sections 73 and 117, the wrong taxonomies of sections of the Act are printed, which is causing confusion and is open to correction/ amendment by the provincial legislatures/ government of Sindh for appropriate rectification. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
'Cross-examination can't be denied'
The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the opportunity of cross-examination to a witness constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. A five-page judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, while setting aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, noted that the cross-examination was the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth. The top court said that the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations. This is especially important when the possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations. The petitioner, who was serving as a superintendent of police (PSP-BS-18), was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was issued a charge sheet and a statement of allegations for committing acts of omission, thereby constituting inefficiency, misconduct and corruption in terms of Rule 3(a)(b) and (c) of the government servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to an order dated December 23,2015, passed by the Supreme Court, and the Sindh government forwarded the names of other PSP officers, including the petitioner, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was summoned, heard in person, and his statement/reply was recorded against the said charge sheet. The statements of 138 witnesses were recorded, but he was not allowed to cross-examine any of them. After completion of the inquiry, the report was submitted on 12.11.2018 to the authorised officer, who forwarded it to the Secretary (Establishment) with the recommendation to impose the major penalty of "Reduction to Lower Stage in Time Scale for Three Years" under Rule-4(b)(ii) of the government servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) upheld the punishment. The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court. The order notes that the main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinise the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases, and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented.
