Judge highlights lack of rules to govern CBs
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, who is also a member of a committee that forms constitutional benches (CBs) of the Supreme Court, has raised questions on the absence of rules regulating CBs practice and procedure.
During the hearing of the reserved seats case on Monday, Justice Mandokhail asked counsel for SIC Faisal Siddiqi to read provisions of Article 191A, which were inserted through the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 2024.
The counsel read Article 191A (6), which says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution but subject to law, the judges nominated under clause (1) may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the CBs.
This provision reflects that CB judges will frame rules regarding the regulation of the benches.
However, Justice Aminuddin Khan responded that the word "may" has been used in that provision, which shows that rules framing is not mandatory.
Monday's hearing in the reserved seats case reflects that the CB committee comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar is divided on the question of framing of rules for the CBs.
According to the Supreme Court's November 20, 2024 press statement, the SC registrar was tasked to prepare draft rules regulating the practice and procedures of the CBs in consultation with Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with the final draft to be reviewed by the committee for approval.
However, it is not clear whether the SC registrar shared the proposed rules with the committee for final approval. The committee constituted under Article 191A (4) of the Constitution had convened its third meeting on November 13, 2024 under the chairmanship of Justice Aminuddin Khan.
The meeting, attended by Justice Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar, and the SC registrar, had deliberated on several critical matters aimed at improving the efficiency and transparency of case management, particularly for the CBs.
Lawyers are already raising their voice over the absence of rules for nomination of judges to the CBs as well as the constitution of the CBs, as mentioned in Article 191A (6) of Constitution.
CJP Yahya Afridi, in his capacity as the chairman of the JCP on March 3 formed a committee to draft an objective criterion for selecting judges for the CBs under Clause (4) of Article 175-A and for selection of judges for the CBs under Articles 191-A and 202-A.
Justice Mandokhail is heading the committee. It is not clear whether the committee has finalized its rules. It has been witnessed that in the absence of rules, some SC judges, who are not in the good books of the executive, have been excluded from the CBs.
Three senior SC judgesCJP Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtarare excluded from the CBs without reason. Even Justice Mandokhail on Monday expressed desire that all judges should be nominated for the benches.
If all judges are included in the CBs then the composition of the CB committee will also change and the present members will become irrelevant. Now a debate has started as to why some judges are showing reluctance to support the nomination of all SC judges for the constitutional benches.
Even no explanation has been given for excluding the six judges who were part of the original bench that heard the case from the larger bench hearing review petitions in the case. To ensure transparency, there is a need that rules should be framed for the nominations as well constitution of the CBs
Now all eyes are on the 11-member larger bench to see whether it accepts or rejects objections to the bench which does not include the judges, who were part of the earlier bench without any valid reason.
Some lawyers believe that the CB committee should at least nominate these six judges in the larger bench hearing reserved seats case. At least the committee should shift the burden and refer the matter to the JCP.
It was witnessed that the bench was not properly constituted in Article 63A case. Now PTI lawyers accuse that reversal of judgement on the interpretation of Article 63A of Constitution had provided facilitation to the executive for passing the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant win'
In a 5-4 unsigned opinion the top US court said that some of New York's restrictions violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. PHOTO: AFP The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies but it left unresolved the issue of whether he can limit birthright citizenship. The Republican president welcomed the ruling and said his administration can now seek to proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship that he said "have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis". "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address its legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SL court stops state land grab from Tamils
Sri Lanka's top court halted Friday a government move to acquire land in northern regions still reeling from the consequences 16 years after the end of a decades-long civil war. Sri Lanka's north bore the brunt of the conflict in the 37-year-long Tamil separatist war, which was brought to a bloody conclusion in May 2009. Many among the Tamil minority lost their land title deeds during the years of displacement, and the area was also hit by the 2004 Asian tsunami. The Supreme Court order concerning nearly 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares) of land came a day after UN human rights chief Volker Turk ended a three-day visit, during which he urged the authorities to return private lands still occupied by troops. The UN estimates that at least 100,000 people died in the war, and that 40,000 of them from the Tamil minority were killed by troops in the final months of the conflict.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Dark moment in our history'
Listen to article The PTI has strongly condemned the Supreme Court's verdict in the reserved seats case, calling it a violation of constitutional and democratic principles. In a statement released by PTI's Central Media Department on Friday, Imran Khan's party described the verdict as a "continuation of state oppression" and "a robbery of the public mandate". Once again, the constitutional right of the PTI has been looted through a judicial bench, it said. The statement noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled in PTI's favour, recognizing its entitlement to the reserved seats but it has now contradicted that stance. The statement added that this verdict tramples the spirit of justice, the people's vote, and the right to representation. "The PTI presented constitutional points and legal arguments before judicial forums for months, but it has become evident that the courts exist only to serve the elite." The PTI alleged that the reserved seats were distributed "like spoils of war" among parties that lacked public support, calling it a blatant mockery of democracy. It went on to say: "This verdict marks one of the darkest days in Pakistan's constitutional history. First, the electoral process was attacked, the bat symbol was taken away, party workers were arrested, and now the public mandate has been rejected." Calling the current system "devoid of public, constitutional, and democratic values," the PTI declared that this is now a system where speaking the truth is a crime, demanding rights is rebellion, and voting for Imran Khan is an unforgivable sin. "We may be disappointed by the courts, but not by the people. And we know that in the end, victory will belong to truth, the Constitution, and Imran Khan," it stated. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the decision. In a statement, he congratulated the government's legal team and appreciated it for the tireless work. He said the correct interpretation of the law in the decision established the supremacy of the Constitution and law. He urged the opposition to work together with the government and play its positive role for development and prosperity of the country.
