Pakistan National Assembly passes two bills
The Special Technology Zones Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposed that the independent members of the Board of Governors of the authority shall be appointed by the Prime Minister on recommendation of the secretary of the division concerned.
'The National Commission for Minority Rights Bill, 2025' says that the state is bound to promote respect of Religious Diversity and create favourable conditions, in which, followers of Minority Religions are enabled to freely practice, express and develop their own culture as it is guaranteed in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
Federal Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry presented 'The Special Technology Zones Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2025' in the house of passage. The House passed the bill with majority. The bill already passed by the Senate.
According to statement of objects and reasons of the bill, 'in order to delegate the authority from the federal government to lower appropriate authority in the proposed law it has been proposed that the independent Members of the Board of Governors of the Authority shall be appointed by the Prime Minister on recommendation of the Secretary of the Division concerned.'
Federal Minister for Law and Justice Senator Azam Nazeer Tarar tabled 'The National Commission for Minority Rights Bill, 2025' in the House for passage. The House passed the bill with majority despite of rising objections by the opposition members on it. The opposition members of the PTI and JUI-F said that the bill passed by the Senate with amendments as it was referred to the Senate after passage form the National Assembly. They said that the Senate made some amendments in the bill so it should be referred to concerned standing committee of the House for further deliberation.
On the objections of opposition members on the bill, Federal Minister Khawaja Asif said that we need to show unity in the house at this time. According to objects and reasons of the bill, 'Whereas the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a state party to various International Instruments on Human Rights, including the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities of the United Nations which require measures for the protection of the Religious Minorities and their promotion; whereas the state is committed to protect, empower and develop underrepresented Communities, including Religious Minorities, to ensure their effective participation in economic, political and public life; whereas, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a judgment dated 19.06.2014 in Suo Moto Case No. 1 of 2014, on the protection of Minorities, has directed that Federal Government should constitute a statutory body for monitoring and making appropriate recommendation for realisation of the constitutional and legal safeguards guaranteed to the religious minorities under the constitution and the law.'
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
3 hours 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.
Business Recorder
13 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Sindh PA celebrates Independence Day
KARACHI: In a display of unity and inclusion, the Sindh Assembly on Thursday celebrated Pakistan's 78th Independence Day with a symbolic session at its historic old building, bringing together lawmakers, special students, and guests. The day began with Speaker Syed Owais Qadir Shah hoisting the national flag, followed by special prayers for the country's security, progress, and prosperity. The ceremony was attended by Deputy Speaker Anthony Naveed, Provincial Home Minister Zia Ul Hassan Lanjar, Leader of the Opposition Ali Khurshidi, ministers, women and minority representatives, and members from all political parties. Special students from the Ida Rieu Welfare Association were given seats in the members' chairs. Abid Ali, a differently-abled student, read out an Independence Day resolution from Braille, seconded by Asma Zahoor, Tauseef Ahmed, and Hans Raj. The resolution paid tribute to the armed forces, praised the success of Operation Bunyan Mursus — described as the 'Battle of Truth'— and commended Bilawal Bhutto Zardari for enhancing Pakistan's image through diplomacy. It called on the youth to stand as a united front in service of the nation. The House unanimously adopted the resolution, greeting the students with standing ovations and desk-thumping. Tauseef Ahmed recalled the night of May 7, when the Pakistan Air Force 'brought down six enemy aircraft in minutes' and the army 'held the Line of Control with their blood.' He called Operation Bunyan Mursus a decisive chapter in the spirit of the Pakistan Resolution. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
NA resolution seeks to curb population growth
The National Assembly has passed a resolution calling for urgent and comprehensive measures to bring down Pakistan's population growth rate to sustainable levels. The resolution was moved by central leader of PPPP Syed Naveed Qamar in the House. Recognizing the grave implications of the alarmingly high rate of population growth revealed in the 2023 Population and Housing Census, the House acknowledged its adverse impact on the state's ability to improve citizens' welfare, particularly in providing fundamental rights such as education, healthcare, employment, housing, and shelter.
