Six bills referred to committees
The referred bills include: The Pakistan Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2025], The Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Amendment) Bill, 2025, The Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 2025, The Civil Servants (Amendment) Bill, 2025, The Anti-Dumping Duties (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and The Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Bill, 2025
The bills will now be examined in committee before being brought back to the House for final discussion and voting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
14 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Bano Bibi and Ehsanullah case: Panel concerned over non-submission of challan
ISLAMABAD: Special Committee on Gender Mainstreaming has expressed deep concern over non-submission of challan by the Balochistan Police in the recent honour killing case of Bano Bibi and Ehsanullah. The committee urged all the provincial governments to address gaps in the effective implementation of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Honor Killings) Act, 2016' to prevent recurrence of such heinous incidents in future. The 13th meeting of the Special Committee was held under the chairpersonship of Dr Nafeesa Shah, MNA. During deliberations on the Balochistan incident, the additional IGP informed the committee that the case was reported nearly 30–40 days after the couple was shot dead on the orders of a tribal jirga prior to Eidul Adha. The victims, who had contracted a love marriage, were lured by their families under the pretext of a feast, where they were informed of the jirga's decision. Following the circulation of a video of the killings on social media, the Balochistan Government registered a terrorism case as no application had been submitted by relatives or locals. The committee noted with concern the delay in prosecution and emphasised the urgent need for the submission of challan. While acknowledging the arrest of several accused, the committee called for intensified efforts to apprehend the main culprit who remains at large. The additional chief secretary, Balochistan, was directed to further refine the tracking system for all the criminal cases—from FIR registration to conviction—and to present the mechanism in the committee's next meeting. Expressing alarm at the rising incidence of honour-based killings in the country, the committee stressed that the persistence of such crimes stems from lapses in the implementation of the 2016 Act. It urged all provinces to strengthen enforcement measures to ensure justice and deterrence. The committee was also briefed by the IGP Sindh on a recent case of marital rape in Karachi. In July 2025, a 19-year-old Hindu woman, Shanti, passed away in hospital after falling into a coma, allegedly following brutal sexual violence inflicted by her husband only days after their marriage. Despite a reporting delay of nearly 20 days, the Sindh Police completed its investigation, submitted the challan in court, and secured the husband's confession. While appreciating the swift police action, the committee strongly condemned the brutality of the incident. Meanwhile, the committee also conveyed heartfelt condolences and expressed solidarity with the victims of the floods in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The meeting was attended by members Aqeel Malik, Shaista Pervaiz Malik, Khawaja Izharul Hassan, Shahida Begum, Shahida Rehmani, MNAs, and senators, Fawzia Arshad and Khalida Ateeb. Senior officers from relevant federal ministries, divisions, and provincial governments were also present in the meeting. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
Opposition 'bias claim' in civil awards sparks Senate uproar
The upper house of the parliament witnessed uproar on Friday as opposition lawmakers accused the government of politicising this year's civil awards by allegedly favouring ministers and treasury benches, while ignoring deserving figures. The Senate session, chaired by Chairman Yousaf Raza Gillani, turned heated after he announced that several cabinet members and senators had been conferred national honours on August 14. Opposition members demanded disclosure of the criteria used for selection. Among the awardees were Ishaq Dar, Mohsin Naqvi, Musadik Malik, Azam Nazeer Tarar, Faisal Sabzwari, Senator Sherry Rehman, Senator Bushra Anjum, Ahsan Iqbal and Ahad Cheema. Irfan Siddiqui and Sarmad Ali are to receive their awards on March 23 next year. Senator Falak Naz Chitrali questioned, "What war did Atta Tarar fight?" while Senator Humayun Mohmand sarcastically remarked that "the designer of the war, Nawaz Sharif, has not been awarded." PTI's Senator Faisal Javed said party social media activists had countered Indian propaganda "day and night" but were ignored, accusing the government of "destroying the sanctity" of the honours. Defending the awards, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said martyrs and heroes of the Marka-e-Haq had been recognised, including those who lost their homes. He said some senators had "fought on diplomatic fronts abroad" and thanked PTI's social media workers for their online role in the campaign. The atmosphere grew tense when Senator Faisal Javed raised the omission of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's picture from official Independence Day advertisements, displaying the founder's picture on the Senate floor. "Explain, or we will not let this House run," he warned. Tarar expressed ignorance of the matter, called the omission "hurtful" and promised an inquiry. The House later unanimously adopted a resolution lauding the founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution and the armed forces. Earlier, Senator Zeeshan Khanzada criticised that while prisoners often receive sentence remissions on August 14, PTI leaders were instead handed "10-year jail terms like Bata sale rates." Separately, Senator Kamran Murtaza voiced concern over the suspension of mobile internet across 36 districts of Balochistan and alleged closure of rail, road and air links, warning of damage to Pakistan's image. Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry clarified that only mobile internet services had been suspended from August 6 to 31 due to "credible security threats" under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganisation) Act, 1996. He said telephone lines, airline operations, and road and rail links remained functional. "These measures are taken in specific areas facing threats, not across unrelated regions," he said, citing past terror attacks in the province, including on the Jaffar Express and the Army Public School in Khuzdar. On concerns over prepaid internet packages, Dr Chaudhry pledged to take up the matter with the concerned ministry, assuring that unused credit during the suspension period would be carried forward to the next month. The session was adjourned till Monday evening.
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
CJP faces scrutiny over ignoring full court order in 26th Amendment case
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after Supreme Court (SC) committee minutes revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The three-member committee, operating under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 to form regular benches, was chaired by CJP Afridi in late October last year, with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar as members. The majority — Justices Shah and Munib — had ordered the petitions be fixed before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued the committee lacked legal authority to direct the formation of a full court. He also consulted all judges individually and nine of the 13 supported the formation of a constitutional bench to hear the case. Now that the CJP's justification for the non-formation of a full court is in public domain, lawyers are questioning his conduct by asking who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. "How could judges have been consulted on a matter which, according to the statute, was not within their jurisdiction? Why every week all 23 are not consulted?" asked a lawyer, speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Likewise, advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he failed to understand why an informal poll of other judges was taken by the CJP after the practice and procedure committee - as it then was - had made a majority decision. "I similarly fail to understand why such a determination, if it was needed after the committee decision, was not taken in a formal full court meeting. I also fail to understand why the CJP was willing to interpret the 26th Amendment in favour of the executive's influence, and reluctant to have the Amendment's constitutionality first tested by a full sitting of his peers," said advocate Jaferii. Read: SC judges urge CJP to call full court on 26th Amendment pleas Meanwhile, advocate Asad Rahim Khan said that the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciary; not to accept its subordination by the executive. "Should [former] chief justice Nasirul Mulk have put off a full court from hearing the challenge to the 21st Amendment, by arguing that Article 175(3) had already been amended, and there was nothing left for the Court to do about it? For or against, the judges decided according to their consciences, and the law was settled. Again, that was their job," said the advocate. He further said that the greatest judicial regression in 30 years – where the amendment's very passage is under a cloud – can't be treated as a fait accompli. "Going by this logic, if the Constitution were subverted through a [provisional constitutional order] PCO or some other unlawful means tomorrow, that wouldn't be heard either, as it would be [illegally] protected in the text of the Constitution," he added. The longer the amendment is undecided, the longer its automatic acceptance, and, as a result, the longer the judiciary's corrosion. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph three of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that SC does not believe in transparency and fears criticism. Public comment is the best form of accountability. Avoiding a full court meeting at that time shows the intent. The matter should have been discussed in Full Court meeting because opinion of majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," said the senior lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He asked how one member could violate the decision of a statutory committee empowered to decide how and which cases were to be fixed. The statute did not give power to one member to overrule the majority decision. The other judges were not relevant and seeking their informal individual opinion was illegal and in out right violation of law, he said. Since November last year, the constitutional bench is unable to decide the fate of 26th Constitutional Amendment. In January, the constitutional bench took up the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Later, the bench did not hear the case. Interestingly, the creation of constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Read more: Judicial reforms shape SC's first constitutional bench Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges are elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, SC judges Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar urged the CJP to immediately fix hearings for the pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In their letter, the two judges, who are part of the committee responsible for fixing cases and forming benches under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), stated that the committee has decided to hear these constitutional petitions in a full court, with the initial hearing date set for November 4. The dispute began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the latter's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to bring the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. They then sent a second letter to CJP Afridi, expressing their concerns over the postponement. According to the letter, the judges had previously informed the registrar of their decision on October 31 and instructed the registrar to publish the decision on the Supreme Court's official website. They argued that the petitions challenging the amendment demand a comprehensive review by the full court, as this matter involves constitutional implications that go beyond standard judicial concerns. By refraining from convening a full court, the chief justice had, according to some experts, signaled a cautious approach to the handling of such cases, potentially seeking to avoid judicial overreach or political entanglements.
