JCP to review tenure of constitutional benches
The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches.
At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches.
Extension of constitutional benches has been proposed for the second time. The federal government on December 21 managed to get its way at the JCP which had rejected a suggestion to nominate all Supreme Court judges to its Constitutional Bench (CB) by a majority vote of 7 to 6.
Except Justice Aminuddin, all JCP's judicial members namely CJP Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had voted for all the Supreme Court judges to be part of the CB. Two PTI members Barrister Gahar Ali Khan and Barrister Ali Zafar supported their view.
However, the government as well as the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representatives in JCP did not support their suggestion. The judicial members had faced embarrassment, when their own fellow judge, Justice Aminuddin Khan, did not support their suggestion.
The JCP by majority 7 to 6 endorsed the extension of the CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan for six months.
Once again it is being expected that the government will be successful to get majority votes for the extension of present CB, which performance is under question. There is no objective criteria for the selection of judges for CB.
Performance of CB
The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment.
The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution.
Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB.
A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous.
"It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance.
"Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer.
He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. 'Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times.'
He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment,' he adds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Opposition huddle
Listen to article There is a twinkle of hope for the opposition as it, at least, managed to gather under an umbrella and call out the government for its extra-constitutional actions. The assembling of the opposition conglomerate, nonetheless, was a telling tale of hide and seek, as the local administration in the federal capital went on a witch-hunt. This reflected the political intolerance that is now well-embedded within the ruling collation as it apparently believes in exterminating the dissent voices, and going solo in contravention of the essentials of a participatory democracy. The fact that the opposition alliance Tehreek-i-Tahafuz-i-Ayeen-i-Pakistan (TTAP) was able to come out with a strong narrative, after a long hiatus, and called for a grand dialogue and a new charter of democracy is a welcome sign. It should pave the way for reconciliation. The coalition of six opposition parties, of which the PTI is a component, was categorical in demanding an end to what they described as a "wave of fascism and political manipulation" in the country. It also offered its 'blanket support' for all anti-government protests, calling upon the authorities to release all political prisoners, including Imran Khan and Baloch dissidents. The opposition is now unanimous in calling for supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, appointment of an independent Election Commission and fair elections. Likewise, setting up of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was underscored to address in de jure terms the excesses that have been committed against the people, so that a new congenial order could emerge in the country. The call for repealing the 26th amendment and reforming the judiciary was at the bastion, as the alliance insisted that the fundamental spirit of the Constitution and distribution of powers among the organs of the state stood shattered, leading to erosion of public trust in the system. This definitely necessitates a grand dialogue, and the government would be well advised to lend an attentive ear, rather than scoffing at it in a knee-jerk reaction.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Bonded freedom?
Listen to article Though humankind might claim inherent individual freedom, the need for collective order imposes significant constraints on it. That is, the sustainable fulfillment of primary survival needs — which underscores the necessity of orderly collective affairs — requires individuals, both individually and collectively, to relinquish part of their otherwise unrestrained autonomy to authorities sanctioned for justly organised regulation of collective affairs. However, the questions persist: How much freedom should be given up to maintain social order? Do limits on freedom lead to more order? Does the authority that gains this freedom always act in the best interest of the public? For centuries, the notion that ordered freedom thrives under self-governance has been tested by history. The pursuit of self-rule has driven movements for self-determination, democracy and revolution and, more recently, efforts to balance freedoms with order. For instance, many countries today — such as Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada — effectively strike this balance by ensuring political freedoms through transparent democracy, free speech and inclusion, while maintaining stability through efficient and responsive governance, low corruption and low crime rates. However, most South Asian countries struggle to fully and equitably capitalise on their hard-earned freedom. Today, people in these societies face oppressive restrictions on individual and collective liberties, often justified in the name of national security or public order, without Pakistan being an exception. Interestingly enough, excessive social restrictions often have a paradoxical impact: they tend to create more disorder, which then justifies more restrictions under the guise of restoring order to the disorderly social order. This vicious cycle of paradoxical outcomes questions the legitimacy of restricting individual and collective liberties. Meanwhile, the ruling elite enjoy near-absolute impunity for their actions, systematically undermining the very freedoms they claim to protect. The founders of Pakistan had endured great hardships to enable the people to cultivate a life free from colonial oppression, slavery and suffering. The fruits of freedom, nonetheless, remained out of reach for the people and are being disproportionately reaped by the ruling elite. The Constitution and citizens' rights have long been encroached upon and exploited by our own rulers, who — through exclusive and extractive policies and practices — enforce chains that are native in name but colonial in practice, liberating in appearance but subjugating in effect. While not entirely new, authorities have imposed selective restrictions on civil liberties, political rights and justice through a series of legislation and acts. The 26th Amendment, the PECA Amendment and summary trials of civilians have accelerated the erosion of civil and political freedoms. Also, the fixed adjudication in the superior judiciary and oppressive curbs on media and civil space speak volumes about the facilitated erosion of liberty in the country. Today, the country has neither that internal freedom nor the desired order. Notwithstanding the ritualistic elections organised for the dynastically despotic elite, the entrenched influence of unrepresentative forces over government policymaking, media narratives and foreign policy, along with its near-total impunity and indiscriminate use of extralegal force, has tilted the balance toward authoritarian power. On the 14th of this month, we will cherish our beloved country's Independence Day with impassioned speeches recounting how our founders wrested freedom from British colonial rule. Yet, little thought will be given to whether the nation and its people are truly free today. Shouldn't the official theme of this year's Independence Day, more realistically, be "A Critical Reflection on Bonded Freedom, Public Resentment and Betrayed Public Hopes for A Just, Inclusive and Prosperous Pakistan?"
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
PTI to submit CCTV footage of police raids
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday allowed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to submit CCTV footage of alleged police raids as part of the official court record. The decision was made by Justice Khalid Ishaq while hearing a petition filed by senior PTI member Akmal Khan, who sought judicial intervention against what he termed illegal police actions targeting party supporters. In his petition, Khan requested the court to restrain police officials from conducting raids and harassing PTI workers and supporters involved in mobilizing for the party's August 5 protest. The petitioner named the Inspector General of Police Punjab, the CCPO Lahore, DIG Operations, and the Station House Officers (SHOs) of Shahdara and Ferozwala (District Sheikhupura) as respondents. He argued that the alleged police actions were in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Read More: APC calls for abolishing SIFC, 26th Amendment, creating new 'Charter of Democracy' Citing constitutional protections, Khan submitted that every citizen has the right to move freely within Pakistan, reside in any part of the country, and assemble peacefully — subject to reasonable legal restrictions in the public interest. He further argued that citizens also have the right to form or join political parties unless such activities are declared prejudicial to national sovereignty or integrity by the federal government and later upheld by the Supreme Court. Justice Ishaq, while accepting PTI's request to include CCTV footage as evidence, noted that any material relevant to the alleged harassment and unlawful actions by police may assist the court in assessing the facts of the case. The court will continue proceedings after examining the submitted footage and hearing responses from the concerned police officials.
