Afridi leaves for Hajj: Justice Muneeb sworn in as acting CJP
ISLAMABAD: Justice Muneeb Akhtar was sworn in as the acting chief justice of Pakistan on Friday, following the departure of CJP Yahya Afridi for the annual Hajj pilgrimage Friday.
The oath-taking ceremony was held at the Supreme Court in Islamabad, where Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel administered the oath to Justice Akhtar.
The event was attended by Supreme Court judges, senior lawyers, and officials from the Attorney General's Office.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar, currently third in seniority among Supreme Court judges, will serve as the acting chief justice until June 6. Following this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is scheduled to assume the role of acting chief justice from June 6 to 10, during the continued absence of the chief justice.
According to sources, CJP Yahya Afridi left for Hajj early Friday morning and is expected to return to Pakistan on June 10, which falls on the fourth day of Eid ul Azha.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
29 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan Express derails near Mubarakpur
Listen to article Two bogies of the Karachi-to-Rawalpindi-bound 45-Up Pakistan Express derailed in Bahwalpur district of Punjab early Saturday morning, resulting in the temporary closure of both up and down railway tracks, railway sources confirmed, Express News reported. The derailment occurred at 6:05 AM when the AC Standard bogie — the fourth from the rear — came off the track entirely near Mubarakpur Station. The attached dining car was also affected in the incident. No injuries or fatalities have been reported. A relief train was promptly dispatched from Sama Satta, and rescue efforts are in full swing to clear the track and resume services. Railway officials and emergency teams are on-site, with authorities prioritising passenger safety and the swift restoration of operations. Furthermore, the CEO of Pakistan Railways has sought comprehensive details of railway bridges across the country following the recent collapse of the Khanewal Railway Station bridge. In a communiqué dispatched to all divisional superintendents, the Pakistan Railways administration directed them to provide complete information about the bridges within their respective divisions. The data will be used to initiate a countrywide bridge upgradation programme. Special Eid trains to ease holiday rush On the instructions of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan Railways has decided to run five special trains on the occasion of Eidul Azha. Federal Minister for Railways Hanif Abbasi has approved the schedule for these special trains, which will run across major cities. According to a PR spokesperson, the first Eid special train will depart from Karachi for Lahore on June 2 at 1:00 pm. The second train will operate from Quetta to Peshawar on June 3 at 10:00 am. On the same day, a third special train will depart from Lahore for Karachi at 5:00 pm. Later that evening, a fourth train will set off from Karachi for Rawalpindi at 8:00 pm, while the fifth and final Eid special train will depart from Karachi Cantt on June 4 at 5:30 pm.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Jamaat-e-Islami regains political status after Bangladesh top court reverses ban
Listen to article Bangladesh's Supreme Court has reinstated the political registration of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, overturning a 2013 High Court ruling that had barred the country's largest religious party from participating in elections for over a decade. The ruling, issued on Sunday by a four-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, directed the Election Commission to immediately restore Jamaat's registration and resolve all outstanding matters, including the allocation of its election symbol. Jamaat had lost its legal status under the premiership of Sheikh Hasina, who was removed from power following mass protests in August 2024 and subsequently went into exile in India. In her final months in office, Hasina also imposed an executive ban on the party in August 2023. READ: Protests grip Bangladesh The transitional government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, which assumed office after Hasina's ouster, had revoked that executive order, setting the stage for Sunday's legal reversal. 'With the verdict, a multiparty democracy and inclusive election has been acknowledged,' said Jamaat's lawyer, Mohammad Shishir Manir, speaking outside the court. He added that the 2013 decision had been politically motivated and that the new ruling reflected judicial fairness. The verdict follows the Supreme Court's May 27 decision to overturn the conviction of senior Jamaat leader A.T.M. Azharul Islam, who had been sentenced to death in 2014 for alleged war crimes during Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence. Islam was released on May 28 after spending over a decade in prison. READ: Bangladesh begins first trial of Sheikh Hasina aides Jamaat-e-Islami had supported Pakistan during the 1971 war, a stance that remains controversial in Bangladesh. The party was long opposed by the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina and her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country's founding leader. The ruling opens the way for Jamaat to contest in the upcoming 13th parliamentary elections, expected later this year. In a broader shift, the Awami League itself was banned by the interim government in May pending trial over its alleged role in suppressing last year's anti-quota protests that led to Hasina's removal. READ MORE: Hasina blamed for BD deadly crackdown
Business Recorder
20 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. US says it will start revoking visas for Chinese students 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
