PHC halts rollback of cadet promotions
A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has restrained authorities from revoking the promotions of police officers who had advanced in rank as cadets in the Khybe-Pakhtunkhwa police.
The court also sought a detailed response from the concerned departments.
The bench, comprising Justice Naeem Anwar and Justice Farah Jamshed, was hearing a writ petition filed by Amjad Hussain and others through Advocate Syed Asif Ali Shah.
The petitioners argued that they are currently serving at the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and other senior positions in the police force, having received promotions during their training period when they were officially designated as cadets (those candidates who topped their promotion courses).
According to the petitioners, under Standing Order No. 11 of 1987, police officers declared cadets during their course were entitled to faster promotions compared to their peers. These promotions, they asserted, do not fall under the category of "out-of-turn" promotions, which were declared unlawful by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the context of Sindh and Punjab.
The petitioners further stated that the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government had initially attempted to reverse their promotions by misapplying the Supreme Court's ruling. However, in 2022, the Peshawar High Court had ruled that these promotions were legally protected through proper legislative measures and did not qualify as out-of-turn promotions.
They noted that the Supreme Court had laid out distinct procedures for various categories of promotions and that the current Inspector General of Police had, on May 23, 2025, issued a notification wrongly categorizing their cadet-based promotions as out-of-turn.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah becomes acting CJP in rare Eid day ceremony
Listen to article Senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, took oath as the Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan on Saturday, in an unprecedented ceremony held on Eid day at the Supreme Court's Lahore Registry. The oath was administered by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, marking a rare event where the swearing-in of the country's top judicial office took place outside the federal capital and on a public holiday. The ceremony was attended by Supreme Court judges Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Advocate General Punjab Amjad Pervez, along with several senior members of the legal fraternity, was also present. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah will serve as Acting Chief Justice until June 10, during the absence of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is currently in Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. Justice Isa is expected to resume his duties upon his return next week.
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court granted on Friday the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. On the request of the Justice Department, the judiciary had put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The top court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants DOGE affiliates access to Social Security Administration records. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny the request. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2025 The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group filed suits to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. "Elon Musk may have left Washington DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that SSA had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training. They demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems". "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Our grief is not justice
Another woman gone – and we are still playing the same old song and dance. Photo: File They say history is a great teacher. Unless, of course, we are talking about the treatment of women in Pakistan. In that case, the lessons rarely seem to stick. It is not that we forget what happened. In fact, on May 20 when the Supreme Court upheld Zahir Jaffer's death sentence, we proudly reposted '#JusticeForNoor'. We like the same photo of Zainab Ansari that makes the rounds on social media on her death anniversary, as many still comment that her killer should have been publicly hanged. We even speak of Qandeel Baloch's name with bated breath, recounting how unfortunate it was every time we see her picture make it back to our timeline. And now, we chant for 17-year-old Sana Yousaf. We demand the harshest punishment for her killer, calling for his swift execution, insisting that he be made an example of. We post her pictures with teary captions, share videos of her smiling, and ask: how a girl so young could be taken so violently. Outrage, by now, is a choreography we have learned by heart. And we really do mean it. And still, there is always another girl. And then another. And then another. And make no mistake, there always will be. Because ours is not a history of lessons learned – it is rot that keeps returning, like a cancer that festers in any corner it can find. 'Jaisi karni, waisi bharni' Allow us to demonstrate. On June 3, just hours after it was confirmed that Sana's murder was an act of hatred by Umar Hayat for rejecting his "friendship" proposal, social media was flooded with supportive comments. However, as the story goes, the sceptics eventually began to creep. One comment appeared. Then another. Then a third. But why was she on TikTok to begin with? Where are her parents? She must have had some involvement in this. What started as a clear case of rage on femicide by any definition of the word, swiftly flattened into a PR-friendly lecture on how girls should behave. Inevitably, rolling the red carpet for everyone's favorite pseudo-moralists, who, true to form, reach for their most iron-clad, tight-fisted defence: the Islam card. This ranged from throwaway one-liners about the necessity of modesty, casually dropped into comment sections, to full-blown fanatics spewing the most vile vitriol, calling for the swift "erasure" (being generous here) of all such women, because they are the ones spreading "fahaashi", leading society astray and betraying the word of God. Ironically, they consistently fail to acknowledge what Islam actually teaches: that there is no compulsion in religion, that justice is sacred, and that the burden of wrongdoing lies not on the victim, but the oppressor. But nuance, of course, rarely trends. Neither does picking a side, because celebrities with mammothian platforms, sweeped in at just the right time to provide half-baked statements of condemnation while simultaneously preaching the dangers of social media, the importance of privacy, and how young girls should be careful. Only a few and far between had the courage to call a spade a spade: a man felt entitled to a girl's life and he took it. It is not just the social media echo chamber that is pushing this narrative, too. Just last week, Justice Ali Baqir Najafi stood in the Supreme Court, following Jaffer's sentencing and described Noor's case as a warning against live-in relationships. Unfortunate and disgusting sure, but a cautionary tale, nevertheless. And so, the case of a woman who was tortured, killed, and beheaded became, somehow, a parable about lifestyle choices inviting danger. And the cancer does not stop at the courtroom. We saw this unfold in real time with the Dua Zehra case, where large media outlets and mainstream journalists after expressing their concerns, speculated on her character, questioned her sanity, painted her as rebellious, and amplified every salacious detail they could find. Our silent complicity Perhaps the most devastating betrayal comes when these words are repeated by our own. At the dinner table, the cancer lives in our mothers, who mourn the news as it plays on the television and then reinforce this is why girls should stay home. It grows in our grandmothers, who agree with them, sighing "in my day girls stayed quiet." It breathes in our cousin commenting, "this happens when girls don't stay within their limits". It thrives in phrases like, "apni izzat apne haath" (you are the guardian of your own honour). While there is some truth to the notion that we have a degree of control over the respect we receive from those around us, more often than not, this phrase is used in a deceptive way to teach young girls something far more insidious. It becomes a subtle, almost palatable way of implying: "What happened to you is sad but if you hadn't done this or that, you wouldn't have invited this trouble; maybe you could have saved yourself." So the point we arrive at is this: despite what we like to tell ourselves, these are not bad apples, or an "uneducated" few. This is the symptom of a society suspended in a coma, where shock is expected, but action is absent. Each time a woman's name becomes a headline, we jolt awake, shaken by our anger; we post tributes, we write captions, until slowly slipping back into a familiar sleep. The truth is, we live in a state of denial, of the unique willful kind, where we have learned to perform our grief. Public mourning has become our substitute for justice and expressions of solidarity have become our excuse to avoid confronting the systems and this has allowed this violence to happen again and again. Perhaps, at this point, this has paralysingly become our only choice. But at the very least, let us not pretend to be surprised. Let us not mourn Sana as if her death was unprecedented or unthinkable. The cancer that led us here is not new and it is not hiding. It has baked into our institutions, families, conversations and media. And it is now convincing us that our grief is enough. Which, for the record, it never was, and it never will be.
