Reserves seats review hearings: SC urged to include original bench judges
The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Friday filed three miscellaneous petitions, including an objection to the bench, for a live broadcast of the proceedings, and to decide 26th Constitutional Amendment case before the reserved seats case. It is further prayed that the review bench be headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (Yahya Afridi).
A full Court comprising 13 available judges of the Supreme Court namely, Qazi Faez Isa (ex-CJP), Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi (incumbent chief justice), Justice Amin-ud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Sayed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan on July 12, 2024 delivered the judgment on reserved seats.
Eight judges, headed by senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, gave a majority opinion, while Justice Yahya Afridi wrote a separate note, neither dissenting nor agreeing entirely with the majority opinion. Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel wrote a partly dissenting opinion. Justice Amin uddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote strong dissenting opinion.
The petitioner contended that the review petitions, filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), remained pending contrary to the normal practice of the apex court of fixing the review petitions within three months of the judgement sought to be reviewed. There is a strong apprehension that the delay was deliberate on the part of the previous Chief Justice who was perhaps waiting for the 26th amendment.
He submitted that after the Supreme Court has been fully packed with 23 permanent judges, one Acting Judge and two Ad-hoc judges, these review petitions were fixed on 06 May 2025 before a bench of 13 judges after lapse of nearly ten months of the impugned judgement.
He stated that the 13-member bench so constituted did not include six judges – Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan – who had heard and decided the case. These judges are all available in the Supreme Court. In their place six judges namely Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, who were not members of the original bench, have been included.
The petitioner contended that it is well settled that there is stark difference between an appeal and review jurisdiction inasmuch as a review petition/application is heard by the same bench which passed the judgment. An appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings while review jurisdiction is governed by Article 188 of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
It submitted that Rule (8) of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 provides that a review application shall be posted before the same Bench which delivered the judgement, while Article 188 expressly provides that such jurisdiction is to be exercised in accordance with Rules.
He stated that the original provision as passed by the Constituent Assembly, while 191 A (5) passed by the Parliament lacked legitimacy and moral authority, therefore, as there is a patent conflict between the provisions of Article 188 and Article 191 A (5) of the Constitution, the later provision to the extent of placement of review applications before the Constitutional Bench is void and ultra vires the Constitution.
It submitted that a Constitutional Bench is chosen by the Executive or a party to the lis (PML-N and PPPP) has appointed members to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. It is stated that Article 191 (5) in so far as it transferred review jurisdiction to the Constitutional Bench is in conflict with Article 10 A of the Constitution and thus void.
The petitioner claimed that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan that constitutes 'Constitutional Bench' is virtually under the control of the Executive and thus can control the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
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
‘Planting food, not hate': Brazil's Lula razzes Trump over tariff-hit grapes
BRASÍLIA: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Saturday that he hopes Donald Trump can come and get to know the real Brazil, as the South American powerhouse reels from Washington's 50-percent tariffs. In a video taken while he planted grapes — one of the tariff-hit goods — Brazil's leftist leader addressed Trump. 'I hope you can visit someday so we can talk and you can get to know the true Brazil, the Brazil of people who love samba, carnival, soccer, the United States, China, Russia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. We love everyone,' Lula said. The tariffs imposed on Brazil are among the steepest to hit a US trading partner. And unlike with other countries, the measures against Brazil have been framed in openly political terms, with the Republican president justifying the move by alleging Brasilia is conducting a 'witch hunt' against his ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is being tried for an alleged coup attempt against Lula in 2022, and the United States recently sanctioned the judge in the case, along with seven other Supreme Court magistrates. Lula has backed the Supreme Court and promises to defend 'the sovereignty of the Brazilian people.' His administration has also vowed to combat Trump's tariffs, including by lodging an appeal if necessary. The levies, which affect several key exports from the largest economy in Latin America, sweep aside centuries-old trade ties and a surplus that Brasilia put at $284 million last year. In his message on X, Lula said he was giving an example of 'planting food, and not planting violence, or planting hate.' 'I hope that someday we can talk, President Trump, so you can learn about the quality of the Brazilian people,' he adds.
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SC policy sets vehicle, security perks for judges
The Supreme Court has issued a policy regarding the use of official vehicles by judges. The policy, called the Transport Entitlement Policy for the Judges of the Supreme Court 2025, will apply to incumbent and retired judges of the apex court. According to the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension, Privileges) Order 1997, read with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division's letter dated 07.06.2007, on elevation, a Supreme Court judge is entitled to use two official cars up to 1800cc. "One vehicle shall be used as the 'primary car' (for official purposes), whereas the other one as the 'secondary/family car'. The vehicles so provided shall be maintained at government expense through the budgetary allocation of the Court with POL in both the cars up to 600 litres per month (as prescribed monthly ceiling or actual use) on production of a certificate by the respective Private Secretary of the Hon'ble Judge, as decided by the Full Court on 20.01.2010." Each judge shall also be entitled to the provision of two drivers: one provided by the Court from regular strength and the other appointed on a contingent basis. In exceptional circumstances or on an urgent-need basis, if requisitioned, a third car may be providedsubject to availabilityafter the approval of the Registrar for a maximum period of two weeks. If such a period requires further extension, it shall be allowed only with the approval of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), on payment of the prescribed charges. In any case, a third car shall not be retained beyond eight weeks in a year. Provision of Security (Escort) Vehicles The policy states that the CJP is entitled to security (escort vehicles) as per the Blue Book under the supervision of the Chief Security Officer (CSO). "Each Hon'ble Judge shall be entitled to the provision of a well-trained gunman with one security (escort) vehicle on a 1/4 ratio, provided by the Islamabad Police at the Principal Seat and by the Provincial Police Officers in case any Hon'ble Judge is in provincial jurisdiction. Where an Hon'ble Judge requires additional security given any threat, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan shall approve a second escort." Post-Retirement Transport Entitlement The policy states that each regular judge of the Court, on retirement, may retain the primary car for a maximum period of one month, after which the vehicle shall be retrieved and returned to the Court's pool. "Each Hon'ble regular Judge of the Court, on retirement, shall be entitled to purchase a primary or secondary car at depreciated value as per existing government policy, provided that the Hon'ble Judge has not availed the facility previously." It further states that each retired judge of the Court, on demand during their stay in Islamabad or provincial capitals, as the case may be, shall be entitled to the provision of an official vehicle, subject to availability, on prescribed charges as determined by the Full Court, along with a complementary pick-and-drop facility to/from the airport. Disposal of Vehicles "According to the relevant Rules for the Use of Staff Cars, 1980, upon reaching the prescribed age/mileage limit, official vehicles shall be disposed of by prevailing law/rules. The procedure for disposal shall be transparent and in compliance with the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) guidelines or other applicable laws for the time being enforced." It is also clarified that all costs incurred in connection with the procurement, maintenance, fuelling and operation of the official vehicles, as well as the employment of drivers, shall be met from the sanctioned budget of the Court under the respective heads. It is further clarified that in the event of any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the interpretation of this policy, the matter shall be placed before the CJP for appropriate orders. Funeral arrangements policies The Supreme Court has issued new guidelines to manage arrangements on the demise of former judges, appointing focal persons to assist with funerals, transportation, and placement of floral wreaths. According to the office order, the Deputy Registrar (Miscellaneous) - or in his absence, the Assistant Registrar (Misc.), Senior Protocol Officer, or designated staff, will serve as focal person in Islamabad. Officers in charge of branch registries in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, and Quetta will perform similar duties at the provincial level.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Let the full court decide!
The wisdom and conduct of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is under the spotlight. His decision not to fix the high-profile case pertaining to the 26th constitutional amendment before the full court, as per lawful dictum, is now under legal and public scrutiny. It is a foregone conclusion, however, that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi squarely deviated from the laid-down rules in the Practice and Procedure Act of 2023, and rather opted for consulting all the judges on the prima facie of its hearing. Established under the Act, the three-member committee had, as per regulations, ordered the petitions challenging the amendment to be fixed before a full court on November 4, 2024, but the chief justice overrode it and the rest is history. The vital piece of legislation, which has literally torpedoed the functioning of organs of the state, is yet to get a judicial review as it lingers with the Constitutional Bench. The point that makes it ultra vires is that the Constitutional Bench is part of the challenged amendment, and thus it cannot sit in judgment until and unless the legislation's lawful status is decided. Moreover, how could the beneficiaries of the amendment decide about its future? Thus, lawyers and civil society are rightly questioning the rationale behind avoiding a full court hearing when there are precedents in such cases of public importance. The fact that the chief justice reportedly consulted each and every judge individually over the issue makes it mysterious. It points a finger at his conduct and outcome as to who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. The top judge has unnecessarily amassed criticism of his high office, and the need of the hour is to go back to the book and let the full court decide it. The judicial stream, of late, is quite wayward and all it needs is to stick to the dictates of the Constitution. A solemn hearing of the 26th amendment by the full court will not only put to rest legal veracity but also help restore judicial confidence among the masses.
