Bilawal inaugurates various development projects in Hyderabad
Addressing media on Tuesday here at Niaz Stadium, Bilawal criticized the past political neglect of Hyderabad, accusing previous administrations of divisive politics. He reiterated that the PPP's goal is the city's development and public service. Highlighting the Sindh Peoples Housing Project, he called it the world's largest and Pakistan's most transparent initiative, free from corruption. Under this project, 2.1 million concrete houses are being constructed across Sindh, with ownership rights granted to deserving families.
Bilawal noted that the PPP has established many educational institutions and universities in Sindh, with a goal to have a university in every district. He also mentioned that the Sindh Public Accounts Committee has recovered Rs20 billion through transparency, which is being reinvested in the province's development.
Regarding Hyderabad's airport, Bilawal stressed that the second-largest city in Sindh deserves an international airport and pledged to raise the issue with the federal government.
Commenting on terrorism in Balochistan, he condemned attacks on labourers and workers, stating efforts are under way to have these groups declared terrorist organisations by the United Nations to cut off their international funding.
On the 26th Constitutional Amendment, Bilawal highlighted the achievement of equal representation for all provinces in constitutional benches.
Addressing India's water aggression, he affirmed Pakistan's commitment to its constitutional and legal rights but stressed the need for a modern irrigation system to address water scarcity.
Bilawal emphasized that democracy can only thrive when institutions operate within their mandates and politicians stick to politics, enabling the country to unite and progress. He urged collective efforts to address public issues, stating that the nation belongs to everyone, and every citizen has a role in its development.
Earlier, Bilawal inaugurated the state-of-the-art Khan Bahadur Hassan Ali Effendi Peoples Park, spanning 14 acres and designed as an urban forest with over 5,000 trees and 10,000 plants.
The event was attended by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah, Provincial Minister for Local Government Saeed Ghani, Nisar Khuhro, Sharjeel Inam Memon, Jam Khan Shoro, Mayor Kashif Shoro, other provincial ministers, assembly members, PPP leaders, and a large number of citizens.
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
16 hours ago
- Business Recorder
PPP stands with KP people in difficult hours: Sharjeel
KARACHI: Sindh Senior Minister and Provincial Minister for Information, Transport, and Mass Transit Sharjeel Inam Memon said he stands with the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in this time of natural disaster and is deeply saddened by the loss of life and property there. In a statement, he said that during this difficult time, the Pakistan Peoples Party stands with the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and is always ready to provide unconditional support. He added that they pray for the government and people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to face this ordeal with courage and unity and to overcome it soon. Sharjeel Inam Memon further stated that the Sindh government is always ready to help its brothers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and will provide all possible assistance if needed. The Senior Minister Sharjeel Inam Memon said that supporting each other in difficult times is the true identity of the Pakistani nation, and the PPP fully upholds this spirit. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Express Tribune
New bill targets online obscenity
Legislation on a new bill — Prohibition of Obscenity and Vulgarity on Digital Media Bill 2025 — is expected in the next National Assembly session. Introduced by PPP MNA Dr Syeda Shahida Rehmani, the bill seeks to curb obscene content online and entails penalties ranging from Rs100,000 to Rs1 billion. The proposed bill defines "digital media" and "prohibited content" as including online and offline platforms, applications, social media, and streaming services. It will apply to all content in the form of images, audio, videos, multimedia, films, web series, animated sketches, dramas, songs, short videos, live broadcasts, or advertisements viewable via digital media. Prohibited content includes sexual conversations, extramarital relations, sexual immorality, semi-nude attire, drug use, violations of public morality, hurting religious sentiments, mocking hijab, purdah, or the family system, ridiculing religious figures, and violating the ideology of Pakistan or cultural values. Under the bill, an authority, a board, and a tribunal will be established. Violations will be investigated by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) and prosecuted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The board will have eight members: two religious scholars, one woman and one man, two psychologists, one female civil society member, one media legal expert, one media professional responsible for seizing prohibited content, and a federal government representative as chairperson. The tribunal will consist of three members: a person qualified to be a high court judge, a media professional, and an IT expert, who will hear and decide cases related to digital media. The board will have the authority to ban prohibited content, make amendments, take suo motu action against obscene material, and recommend fines for violations, while the authority will act on the board's recommendations. Penalties under the bill include one-year imprisonment and a Rs500,000 fine for the first-time offense and three-year imprisonment and Rs5 million fine for the second offense. Offenses involving religion, women, children, or the family system will entail five-year imprisonment and Rs10 million fine. Digital media platforms and service providers will be required to report all uploaded content in Pakistan to the board within 15 days and, upon notice, block prohibited content within 24 hours and retain the record for three years. Rs50 million will be imposed on platforms for the first violation and Rs100 million fine for the second violation. Repeated violations will result in license cancellation and service blockage. All crimes under this act will be non-bailable and non-compoundable. The bill is expected to be approved by the NA after deliberation in the relevant standing committee. The PECA, a law enacted in 2016, was passed by lower and upper houses, aimed at addressing cybercrime and regulating electronic communication in Pakistan. It was meant to combat online offences such as hacking, data theft, and cyberbullying. Many journalists and media organisations have raised concerns regarding its implications on press freedom and freedom of expression. "The government has to learn the lessons as it was earlier used against the same party, which had passed the law in a haste," commented Mazhar Abbas, a senior member of PFUJ.
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Refusal to form full court draws flak for CJP
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi speaks at a conference at the Federal Judicial Academy in Islamabad on July 25, 2025. SCREENGRAB Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after the minutes of a three-member Supreme Court Committee revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The SC 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 Akhtar — had ordered the petitions be listed for hearing before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued that 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 judges are not consulted?" asked a senior lawyer, while speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. 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 committeeas it then wasmade 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," Jaferii added. Advocate Asad Rahim Khan said the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciarynot 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 decide according to their consciences, and the law is settled. Again, that is their job," said the advocate. He said 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." Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana said it would have been just, fair and proper that 26th Amendment cases were listed for hearing prior to the meeting of the newly formed Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) which appointed a constitutional bench. The Amendment came on October 21, 2024 and former CJP Qazi Faez Isa retired on October 26, 2024. Rana said the CJP Afridi was appointed under the new constitutional dispensation. Thus any challenge to the 26 Amendment on any ground is now virtually impossible. "On the other hand when the 95th Amendment was challenged in India, the Indian Supreme Court did not hold the meeting of the country's judicial commission prior to the case fixation and the Indian SC, later, struck down that amendment," he added. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph 3 of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that the 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 a full court meeting because the opinion of the majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," he said. 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 outright violation of law," he added. Since November last year, the constitutional bench has been unable to decide the fate of the 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 the constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges have been elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, Justice Syed 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 Nov 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.
