Justice Salahuddin Panhwar steps down from bench in reserved seats case
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself on Friday from the bench hearing the reserved seats case.
An 11-member constitiutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan is currently hearing the case.
In its short order on July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, positioning it as the largest party in the National Assembly.
However, the National Assembly has not yet implemented the ruling, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have submitted review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's July 12 decision from last year.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed proceedings.
The decision comes after objections were raised regarding his participation in the case.
Justice Panhwar, part of an 11-member bench, opted to step down from the case on the grounds of preserving the court's dignity.
In his remarks, he mentioned that his past association with the case's key players, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to the objections.
He emphasised that his recusal was necessary to protect the institution's integrity. But, he clarified, that it should not be seen as an admission of the objections' validity.
The decision was met with mixed reactions in the courtroom. Advocate Hamid Khan lauded Justice Panhwar's step, but Justice Aminuddin Khan said that the situation stemmed from the conduct of the involved parties.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail echoed this sentiment, highlighting that despite the controversy, Justice Panhwar was given a chance to speak even when two lawyers from the same party are generally not allowed to argue the case.
On Thursday, the CB turned down the request by one of PTI's counsels to defer the hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case daily.
Earlier, PTI's counsel advocate Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024, majority order of a full SC bench.
He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution.
Read: CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug
"After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007, several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled."
"The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated."
During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018 and 2024.
He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion.
"However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats," he said.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how the apex court can stop any politician from contesting elections independently.
"Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, being major party leaders, decide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?" he asked.
Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party's registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but the SIC was not present in parliament, she said.
Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the 'Awam Dost' party. "Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]?" asked Justice Rizvi.
The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term "Kaptaan ka Sipahi".
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI.
Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the Assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible."
"Either they were more sensible or they had a higher tolerance for pressure," added Justice Hilali.
Recalling past political events, SIC's counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols.
"It was a Saturday, a holiday, but the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be.
At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand?
He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP even though the ANP had not even held any elections "We had conducted elections, but the ECP did not accept them.
We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently," he said.
Justice Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time, while the PTI had already been given several years. "Your party constitution was made more foolproof; we can even say it's better than others," he noted
Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan's request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9.30am today.
On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023, order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void.
As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024, general elections as independents.
Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities.
The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in SC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar steps down from bench in reserved seats case
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself on Friday from the bench hearing the reserved seats case. An 11-member constitiutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan is currently hearing the case. In its short order on July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, positioning it as the largest party in the National Assembly. However, the National Assembly has not yet implemented the ruling, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have submitted review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's July 12 decision from last year. The hearing was briefly adjourned for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed proceedings. The decision comes after objections were raised regarding his participation in the case. Justice Panhwar, part of an 11-member bench, opted to step down from the case on the grounds of preserving the court's dignity. In his remarks, he mentioned that his past association with the case's key players, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to the objections. He emphasised that his recusal was necessary to protect the institution's integrity. But, he clarified, that it should not be seen as an admission of the objections' validity. The decision was met with mixed reactions in the courtroom. Advocate Hamid Khan lauded Justice Panhwar's step, but Justice Aminuddin Khan said that the situation stemmed from the conduct of the involved parties. Justice Jamal Mandokhail echoed this sentiment, highlighting that despite the controversy, Justice Panhwar was given a chance to speak even when two lawyers from the same party are generally not allowed to argue the case. On Thursday, the CB turned down the request by one of PTI's counsels to defer the hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case daily. Earlier, PTI's counsel advocate Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024, majority order of a full SC bench. He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution. Read: CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug "After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007, several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled." "The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated." During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018 and 2024. He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion. "However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats," he said. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how the apex court can stop any politician from contesting elections independently. "Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, being major party leaders, decide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?" he asked. Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party's registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but the SIC was not present in parliament, she said. Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the 'Awam Dost' party. "Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]?" asked Justice Rizvi. The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term "Kaptaan ka Sipahi". Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI. Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the Assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible." "Either they were more sensible or they had a higher tolerance for pressure," added Justice Hilali. Recalling past political events, SIC's counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols. "It was a Saturday, a holiday, but the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be. At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand? He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP even though the ANP had not even held any elections "We had conducted elections, but the ECP did not accept them. We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently," he said. Justice Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time, while the PTI had already been given several years. "Your party constitution was made more foolproof; we can even say it's better than others," he noted Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan's request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9.30am today. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023, order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024, general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in SC.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
K-P CM warns Centre of tit-for-tat response
Listen to article Rawalpindi Central Jail authorities on Thursday once again refused to allow key PTI leaders including Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and veteran politician Makhdoom Javed Hashmi to meet PTI founder Imran Khan, who is detained at the prison facility. Talking to the media later, Gandapur expressed his anger at the "unjustified restrictions" imposed on the executive head of a province and vowed to pay the PML-N led federal government in the same coin. Hashmi, who also remained a part of the PTI from 2012 to 2014, also condemned the move. The K-P chief minister stated that they had to meet the former prime minister in order to brief him on the K-P budget but the authorities did not allow this to happen. "The K-P budget approval process has not yet been completed and the budget session is ongoing," he added. Cracks in the former ruling party became more pronounced after the K-P Assembly on Tuesday approved the provincial budget. Some PTI leaders expressed amazement at the provincial government's "haste" with Imran's sisters claiming that the PTI founder was not consulted ahead of the approval. Gandapur said he could respond to refusal by authorities to let them meet their incarcerated leader by imposing restrictions on Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif during his visit to the K-P. The PTI has been in power in the K-P since 2013. He said Imran, the PTI patron-in-chief, was to give his input before the budget was passed but he, the K-P chief minister, was prevented from meeting him. He said law or the Constitution are being violated; institutions are not functioning and even the judiciary is not independent. "We were told by jail authorities that we could not meet Imran as a precautionary measure, as if we are terrorists. A meeting with the party founder will eventually happen, but the current method is wrong," he said. He said the party has filed a civil miscellaneous application (CMA) in the Supreme Court as well and asked as to what action has been taken on the letters that Imran Khan wrote to the chief justice of Pakistan, Gandapur also asked Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz as to how much authority does the Punjab Home Department actually have in allowing and disallowing a meeting between Imran Khan and his party leaders. He said as a chief minister, it is his right to visit any jail and meet with any prisoner. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi also spoke on the occasion, stating that no one could implement "the minus-Imran formula". He said he had come to Adiala Jail to express solidarity with the PTI founder. Hashmi said he had distanced himself from Imran when he had got closer to the establishment. "Imran does not want freedom, he only demands rule of law," he added.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SC calls for review of Nikahnama form
Listen to article The Supreme Court has asked the federal government as well as the provincial governments to review the 'Nakahnama form' in order to make it user-friendly, effectively safeguarding the rights of the parties, particularly the women. A three-member bench of the apex court, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, noted that without reviewing the Nikahnama form as a whole, the positive step taken by the Punjab government might not achieve the intended goal of protecting the rights of women. The Nikahnama form has been prescribed in the Ordinance of 1961 and notified as part of the schedule of the Rules of 1961. However, the federal government is empowered to make rules in respect of the cantonment areas and the provincial governments in their respective areas of jurisdiction. According to a 22-page judgment, authored by Justice Athar Minallah in a family dispute case, the expressions used in the current Nikahnama form were ambiguous and, therefore, open to be misconstrued. The judgment said that the federal and the provincial governments might consider reviewing the Nikahnama form "to make it more user-friendly", so that "even a literate person of ordinary prudence does not have difficulty in understanding its requirements" and the columns. The judgment stressed the need for removing the "ambiguities likely to arise from the vague and ambiguous expressions used in the headings of the columns in the form currently prescribed" under the Ordinance of 1961, read with the Rules of 1961. "This would not only protect the rights of the parties in general and the women in particular but would also reduce litigation since a more user-friendly prescribed form of the Nikahnama will give rise to lesser disputes," the judgment said. The court noted that Nikah might also be solemnised by a person other than a Nikah registrar. However, it stated that the integrity, competence, knowledge and understanding of the Nikah registrars were crucial for effectively safeguarding the rights of the parties, particularly the women. In the province of Punjab, the judgment continued, the Act of 2015 imposed a statutory upon the Nikah registrar to accurately fill all the columns of the Nikahnama with specific answers of the bride and the groom. The court said that a breach of this statutory duty exposed a Nikah registrar to penal consequences ie imprisonment for up to one month and a Rs25,000 fine. It added the purpose was to protect women from exploitation and provide them with expeditious resolution of family disputes and ancillary matters. "The legislature [Punjab Assembly] was, therefore, conscious of the challenges faced by women in the context of exercising their rights relating to settling the terms and conditions of marriage," Justice Minallah wrote. "The Act of 2015, through which sub-sections (2A) and (4)(i) were inserted in Section 5 of the Ordinance of 1961, was definitely appreciable in securing the rights of the parties, particularly the women, keeping in view the social and cultural norms prevalent in many parts of the country," he said. The court also said that it was indeed a step in the right direction in order to reduce the number of disputes and consequently the volume of litigation as well. "However, we are of the opinion that without reviewing the prescribed form of the Nikahnama as a whole, particularly the expressions used in the headings of the columns, this positive step taken in the province of Punjab may not achieve its intended goal of protecting the rights of women in particular." The Nikah registrars, the judgment stated, had the most important role in ensuring that each party exercised her or his rights and that the entries recorded in a Nikahnama correctly reflected their intention. "It is a statutory duty of each Government to guide the Union Councils in setting out adequate qualifications and criteria for the granting of licences to persons for performing the functions of Nikah registrars," it stated. "Moreover, training and evaluation of performance of those who have been licensed would further guarantee that the social or cultural norms and influences do not prevail over the absolute rights bestowed upon women under the law," it added. "The Governments may also consider taking steps to ensure that persons of integrity and those who possess the required qualification and knowledge are granted licences and regular audits of the record relating to Nikahnamas maintained by the Union Councils are conducted." The court directed the Registrar Office to send copies of this judgment to the cabinet secretary, government of Pakistan, and the chief secretaries of the respective provinces so that they might place it before the competent authorities and forums for considering the observations. The court expected that effective steps would be taken to ensure safeguarding the rights of the parties to a marriage contract, particularly the bride, who might be more vulnerable on account of multiple factors, including the cultural and social norms and beliefs.
