
'CJ can't force bench to hear a case'
Islamabad High Court's (IHC) Justice Babar Sattar has noted that the IHC chief justice has no authority to determineon the administrative side or otherwiseas to whether a bench ought to hear a case or not.
"Once a case is set down for hearing before a single or division bench, it is for such a bench to determine whether circumstances arise for the case to be transferred to another bench, including on grounds of recusal of a judge comprising the bench," the judge stated in a three-page order.
An IHC bench including Justice Sattar on March 14 determined that it would be in the interest of justice if another bench heard a case. The file of the case was, however, "inexplicably" returned to the docket of the bench.
The file contained remarks recorded on the administrative side by IHC Acting Chief Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar that the case was to be heard by the same bench.
Commenting on the development, Justice Sattar stated that the return of the case to this bench "must have been an inadvertent mistake made by the Registrar's office and/or the staff of the office of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice."
He said once the judge comprising a bench determines that he/she would not like to hear the case for reasons stated, the said judicial order is not amenable to interference by the office of the chief justice or registrar considering it an administration matter.
"The obligation to fix urgent and ordinary cases before available benches falls within the domain of the Deputy Registrar under the High Court Rules adopted by the IHC.
"The responsibility of the Chief Justice is to approve the roster of the benches of the court prepared by the deputy registrar. But once such a roster is prepared and approved, the chief justice has no role to play in the fixation of each and every case filed in the court.
"It is only where a bench seized of a case opines that a larger or special bench be constituted to hear the matter that the matter must be referred to the chief justice, as the High Court Rules vest in his office the authority to approve the roster of benches," he added.
Justice Sattar stated that the present practice of referring the matter of a bench's desire to recuse themselves from hearing a case to the chief justice for reassignment and transfer from one court to another is not in accordance with the High Court Rules.
"In case of recusal or where the need arises to transfer a case out of the docket of the bench seized of it, the matter ought to be marked to the deputy registrar for placement before another available bench, in view of the roster of sitting of benches approved by the chief justice.
"Let the file, therefore, be sent to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who will ensure that it is fixed before another available bench according to the approved roster of sitting of benches, that does not comprise any of the judges [of the existing bench that heard the matter]," he added.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Recorder
18 hours ago
- Business Recorder
PECA Act: Respondents asked to submit comments
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) gave a deadline to the respondents to submit comments in the petitions challenging amendments in the PECA Act. A single bench of Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas on Wednesday heard the petitions of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), anchors association and Islamabad High Court Journalists Association (IHCJA). In the petition, counsel of the journalist body adopted the stance that the PECA (Amendment) Act is unconstitutional and illegal; hence, the court should conduct judicial review on it. The petition said the PECA (Amendment) 2025 increased the government control and restrictions on freedom of speech. It said the PECA law violated Article 19 and 19(A) of the Constitution as well. Therefore, it pleaded, the law should be suspended. PECA amendments challenged in SC During the hearing, Advocate Imran Shafiq and other lawyers appeared in the court on behalf of the petitioners. Advocate Shafiq said the federal government has filed its reply only through the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Information while the Ministry of Law and Justice, Parliamentary Affairs and the PTA have not submitted any response yet. He informed the bench that the federal government has raised a question on the jurisdiction of this court. He added that the federation has stated that after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, only the Constitutional Bench of the High Court can hear this case. The lawyer said the second objection was raised while giving a reference of a Quranic verse that before spreading the words, do research. The lawyer said the FIRs are being registered against people and the court should hear this case soon. The IHC bench asked whether there is no news going on? Is someone preventing news from being given or published? Riasat Ali Azad advocate prayed the court to issue a stay order that there will be no FIR or arrest against the journalist for reporting the news. He said that the parties are not submitting a response and are taking time from the court. Journalist Mazhar Abbas said that an atmosphere of harassment has been created in the media industry and the journalists are being summoned and harassed by the FIA. The petitioner's lawyer said the parties should be directed to file their replies and provide a copy of the replies to the petitioners in advance before the next hearing. Justice Inaam remarked that even if the response is not filed, the hearing will still be continued. He said that this case would take a long time and therefore, it will be scheduled after Eid. Later, the court deferred hearing of the case till the second week of July. The PFUJ said in the petition that the law infringed international human rights as well as digital rights in Pakistan. The petition read: '…a writ may be issued declaring that the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 is unconstitutional, being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, due process, fair trial, and the concept of regulatory independence, as well as the doctrines of fairness, proportionality, reasonableness, and constitutional limitations or restrictions, hence void, and liable to be struck down.' Therefore, the PFUJ prayed that the respondents may be restrained and prevented from employing the coercive powers under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, in general, and against the journalist community, in particular till final disposal of the instant petition. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC issues last warning to respondents in PECA case
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday issued last warning to the ministries of law and information technology, the FIA and the PTA to submit their replies in petitions challenging the controversial amendment to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca). Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas stated that the court would proceed with the case even if responses were not filed. The IHC heard joint petitions filed by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), anchorpersons and journalist bodies. During the hearing, Justice Minhas remarked he believed that this case would take a long time and suggested scheduling it after Eid. Advocate Imran Shafique argued that the federal government had only submitted replies through the ministries of interior and information but not from the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs or the PTA. He further noted that the government had filed an unusual reply questioning the court's jurisdiction, claiming that after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, only a constitutional bench of the high court could hear this case. Advocate Shafique rejected the government's argument, calling it an attempt to delay the proceedings. He pointed to a second objection that cited a Quranic verse, suggesting that one should verify information before sharing it. "People are being booked in FIRs and the court should expedite the case," he argued. Justice Minhas questioned whether journalists were currently able to report news freely. He asked whether any news was being blocked or anyone was stopping from giving or publishing news. Advocate Raisat Ali Azad requested the court to issue a stay order to prevent journalists from being arrested or having FIRs registered against them for reporting news.

Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
'Offer met with silence can't be accepted later'
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside a family court's ruling, observing that an offer or proposal which is not expressly accepted and is instead met with silence, conduct or behaviour indicating disinterest or unwillingness, cannot be accepted at a later stage. The case involved petitioner Ahmed Raza, who, during family court proceedings, offered that he had no objection to the decreeing of two suits - one for recovery of maintenance allowance and another for dowry articles and gold ornaments - in favour of Respondent No.2. However, he made this conditional upon her parents or real brothers swearing a special oath on the Holy Quran, affirming that her claims were truthful. Interestingly, at the time, the respondents did not respond to the offer, neither accepting nor rejecting it. The petitioner subsequently closed his oral evidence, sought time to produce documentary evidence, and the case was fixed for final arguments on November 16, 2020. However, before the final arguments could proceed, the respondents filed an application expressing their willingness to accept the petitioner's earlier offer made during cross-examination. The petitioner contested this application, requesting the court to decide the suits on merit. Nevertheless, the family court ruled that the petitioner could not back out of the offer or proposal he had made. Challenging this decision, the petitioner approached the LHC, which overturned the family court's order. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan held that once the trial had moved forward, leaving the offer unaccepted, it became ineffective. "The party missed the train by not expressly accepting the offer promptly," the judge noted. Thereafter, the petitioner's documentary evidence was recorded, and the matter was set down for final arguments. Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 contended that once the offer for a special oath was made, the petitioner could not withdraw from it. Subsequently, the LHC held that a lack of timely acceptance rendered the proposal null and void.