Lawyer tells SC there is disconnect between SC Rules and SC Act
An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to Supreme Court's order removed, said till the time new rules are framed the judges have to follow the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. However, he told the bench that there is disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution.
It would be considered that the review petitions are being heard by a 13-member bench, though on the first day of hearing after preliminary arguments the two judges had dismissed the petitions and opted not to sit in the bench, adding the Court order was signed by all the 13 judges.
He contended that on May 6 when the case was heard no objection was raised by any lawyer on the constitution of the bench. All the 13 members of the bench heard the case, and 11 judges issued notices to the respondents, while two judges declined.
Makhdoom said the review petitions have been filed against the majority (eight judges) judgment, but the Court order was signed by all the 13 members. He said suppose tomorrow five more judges take a stance that the petitions are non-maintainable then votes of two judges will be counted and included with five judges' decision, and the Court order would by 7 to 6, but will be signed by all the 13 judges.
Justice Mazhar said it was argued by the respondent's counsel that though the two judges have dismissed the review petitions, they should not be excluded from the bench. Makhdoom said if the request of the other side is accepted it will be contrary to the law laid down in the judgments of Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Panama cases.
He said the two judges have decided the merit of the case; therefore, now what they will say as already explicitly have expressed their opinion, adding there is no provision of second review. 'My task is to persuade the remaining judges and not two who have recused themselves,' he said.
Justice Amin again said that they have not excluded them, but as per their wish the bench was reconstituted.
Earlier, Hamid Khan, representing Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued on live-streaming of the proceeding of review petitions, saying the original case was live-telecast on all TV channels, and the entire nation benefited from it.
Justice Mazhar stated that the proceedings were shown live as a pilot project, as at that time Full Court in administrative side had given its approval. He said after the 26th Amendment condition has been imposed in Article 191A for framing of rules, adding unless the draft rules are approved by the Full Court, this cannot happen.
Hamid Khan then argued that till the decision on petitions against 26th Amendment, the reserved seats should be adjourned. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
30 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
CJP faces scrutiny over ignoring full court order in 26th Amendment case
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after Supreme Court (SC) committee minutes revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The three-member 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 Munib — had ordered the petitions be fixed before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued 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 are not consulted?" asked a lawyer, speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Likewise, 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 committee - as it then was - had made 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," said advocate Jaferii. Read: SC judges urge CJP to call full court on 26th Amendment pleas Meanwhile, advocate Asad Rahim Khan said that the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciary; not 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 decided according to their consciences, and the law was settled. Again, that was their job," said the advocate. He further said that 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. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph three of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that 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 Full Court meeting because opinion of majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," said the senior lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity. 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 out right violation of law, he said. Since November last year, the constitutional bench is unable to decide the fate of 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 constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Read more: Judicial reforms shape SC's first constitutional bench Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges are elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, SC judges Justice 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 November 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.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court unveils modernised 2025 rules
The Supreme Court on Thursday formally published the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, replacing the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 in what the court described as its commitment to modernization, digitalization, and to bring procedural clarity in the justice system in line with global governance of law. Framed under Article 191 of the Constitution, the new rules replaced "outdated provisions" and brought court procedures in line with contemporary legal, constitutional, and technological developments. According to a press release issued by the SC on Thursday, the rules came into immediate effect. The new rules were framed by a committee formed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afrifi. The committee comprised four SC judges — Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. According to a press releases issued by the apex court, the committee engaged with judges, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and other bar associations. The final draft was placed before the full court and approved after detailed deliberation. Following the promulgation of the new rules, the SCBA issued a statement, stating that the SC did not consult with bars with regard to increase in court fees. It demanded that the SC withdraw its decision to increase the fees, noting that such increase in fees will not help in dispensation of justice. Later in the day, the SC issued a public notice inviting suggestion to improve the rules. The notice said the new rules are conceived as a living document-responsive to the needs of the bench, the bar, the litigants, and adaptable to emerging legal and technological developments. It said that in the spirit of transparency and inclusivity, the CJP has constitute a committee under Rule 1(4) of Order I of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025, to make recommendations for addressing any difficulty that may arise in giving effect to its provisions. Interestingly, the committee comprises the same four judgesJustice Waheed, Justice Khan, Justice Afghan and Justice Abbasiwho were part of the committee that framed the rules. "The SC invites suggestions and feedback from judges, members of the bar, litigants, and the general public in this regard. Submissions will be compiled and reviewed by the committee and placed before the full court for consideration at the commencement of the new Judicial Year. "Suggestions may be sent in writing to the SC registrar," it added. The new rules The Supreme Court Rules, 2025 consist of seven parts, thirty-eight orders, and six schedules, with approximately 280 provisions amendedincluding 160 from the schedules. The rules include 60 new provisions while five outdated provisions have been deleted. The new rules include digital transition and technological enablement. Now all petitions and paper books must now be filed electronically while scanned copies are also mandatory. Notices, orders, certified copies, and pleadings will be issued digitally. Hearings through video-link are now permitted. It makes the authentication of affidavits by an Apostille mandatory. An Apostille is a certificate that simplifies the authentication of documents for international use, particularly for countries that are part of the Hague Apostille Convention. Parties and advocates are also required to provide updated phone numbers, email addresses, and digital app details. Now judicial documents sent via post will not be entertained. It provides litigant access to records and parties may inspect records or obtain copies online or in person. Applications marked urgent or requesting interim relief must be listed within 14 days or at the earliest practicable date. The SC registrar is authorized to ensure compliance with formats prescribed in the Sixth Schedule. Under the new rules, court fees are revised after decades; advocate and official expenses are also updated. However, criminal petitions are fee-exempt — except for certified copies. Copies are free for petitions submitted from jail while habeas corpus and Article 184(3) petitions related to criminal matters remain exempt from fees. The registrar may appoint advocates at state expense in death sentence cases. Counsel fees have also been enhanced. Under the rules, intra-court appeals have been introduced for orders under Article 184(3) and contempt proceedings. One review petition is permitted per judgment and it may be filed in person or through alternate counsel. Frivolous reviews may attract penalties and the security deposit has been increased. A party may revoke a power of attorney and appoint a new Advocate-on-Record. Transfer applications under Article 186A and Section 25A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, are now recognized. Constitutional Benches are formalized through a newly added chapter. The rules also introduce adjudication and procedural safeguards. Appeals from interlocutory orders will be heard by a bench of at least two judges; all other appeals, including those against acquittal will be heard by not less than three judges. Paper books will be delivered in advance to the Attorney-General, Advocate-General, Prosecutor-General, and respondents, with certification of service. The registrar may recall ex-parte orders upon sufficient cause. Compromise in compoundable offences is now formally accommodated. In acquittal appeals, the court may require surety or take coercive action if a respondent avoids appearance. Procedures for summoning records from lower courts have been streamlined. Under the administrative and structural reforms, the registrar is empowered to supervise staff and exercise procedural powers as assigned under the rules. Branch Registries are retained at all provincial capitals; filings are allowed at either Islamabad or the relevant registry. Under the rules, all fees, costs, security deposits, and allowances will be reviewed and revised every three years. Written tests for registration as advocate-on-record have been abolished and advocates with five years' standing may apply directly. The new rules also highlight courtroom conduct. Advocates may wear either a sherwani or a short black coat; wearing gowns is now optional. No concise statement is required in criminal appeals. In civil matters, if security for costs is not deposited within 30 days, leave to appeal stands rescinded unless otherwise ordered. Respondents may seek summary dismissal of frivolous or delay-motivated appeals. Procedural failures shall be treated as irregularities and will not nullify proceedings. Under the new rules, the court's inherent powers to ensure justice remain unaffected. "The Supreme Court Rules, 2025, reflect a transformative vision — integrating digital tools, promoting timely justice, and eliminating procedural rigidity. "With inclusive provisions and simplified processes, the rules usher in a new era of judicial efficiency and responsiveness in Pakistan. These rules have also been uploaded on the Supreme Court website for the information of the general public," said the official press release.
Business Recorder
11 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC releases minutes of Committee
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday made public the minutes of a Committee constituted under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) and the Chief Justice of Pakistan's letter. These contain a decision of the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar date October 31, 2024, wherein, they demanded that the constitutional petitions challenging the 26th Amendments be placed before the Full Court (on judicial side) and fixed for hearing on November 4, 2024. In response to that decision, CJP Yahya Afridi wrote a letter on 31-10-2024 that 'the matter for constitution of the benches for hearing a petition under Article 184 of the Constitution, vests upon a Committee set up comprising of worthy judges of the Constitutional Bench, and not the Committee constituted under Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023.' The CJP's letter mentions; 'I personally sought the opinion of all other thirteen judges of the Supreme Court, as to whether the request made by the two judges regarding the constitutional petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment filed under Article 184 of the Constitution to be fixed before a Full Court of the Supreme Court or before the Constitutional Bench under Clause (a) of Sub-Article (3) of Article 191A of the Constitution. Nine of the thirteen judges were of the view that the petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment be placed before a Constitutional Bench and not before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.' As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court I did not find it appropriate to call for a Full Court Meeting, as the same would not only dampen the much-needed spirit of collegiality amongst Judges but would also expose the Supreme Court to public comment, which regretfully has been the case in the recent past,' it added. According to the minutes of 26th May, 2025, the Committee considered the revised draft of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Committee Procedure, 2025. 'It was unanimously decided that in case the Chairperson/Chief Justice of Pakistan is unavailable, for any reasons, or in case he proceeds abroad, he may constitute a committee for dealing with urgent situations mentioned in the Draft during his absence.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
