Clipping powers
To add to this is the committee formed under the Practice and Procedure Act, 2023, with a new notification to circumvent further the powers rested with the Chief Justice. The fact that now a three-member body will manage the affairs of the top judge in his absence, as illustrated exclusively under Clause-5, and that the decision to constitute benches shall not rest with him either has made the high office ineffective. This decision lies in conflict with Article 180 of the Constitution. It is also noticeable that the suo motu powers wrested in the office of the Chief Justice were earlier clipped, apparently on concerns of judicial activism by independent-minded senior judges, rendering a death blow to the court's utility and the confidence of the masses in the judicial system.
The Clause-5 is in need of being scrutinised by the judiciary at large. It does not come to impact a phase of time for reasons of exigency, but an entire modus operandi of lawful independence, prestige of the superior courts and supremacy of the Constitution. It is regrettable that the puisne judge, who was looked up in awe, is now part and parcel of the tweaks being introduced in the court proceedings - something that warrants some explanation. Restoring the original dictum of the Constitution in judicial relevance is indispensable, and all such measures undertaken on assumptions must stand rescinded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
SJC decides 19 complaints, defers 5
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), unanimously, decided 19 complaints out of 24, and deferred five for the time being. In February, the SJC had examined as many as 46 complaints against constitutional office-holders, disposed of 40 of them, sought comments on five complaints and asked for further information in one case. According to a press release, issued by PRO SC on Saturday, the Council examined 24 complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution. It said, '19 complaints were unanimously decided to be filed while five others were deferred for the time being.' The Council meeting was held under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is also Chairman of the SJC at Supreme Court, Islamabad. It was attended by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah (present through video link), Justice Munib Akhtar, Chief Justice Lahore High Court Aalia Neelum and Chief Justice Sindh High Court Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar. The sources said that during the meeting a proposal by CJP Yahya was placed before the members that action should be taken against those complainants who file frivolous applications against the judges of the superior courts in order to discourage such practice. However, the Council did not approve it, and also preferred that judges whose names are cleared by the SJC are not disclosed. The Council discussed all the agenda items one by one. The proposed draft of Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules, 2025 was approved by the council, while it was resolved that procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view; therefore, these required further deliberation. Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz, on March 25, 2024 had written a letter to the SJC against the alleged 'interference' and 'intimidation' by the 'operatives of intelligence agencies.' In their letter, they sought guidance from the SJC with regard to 'the duty of a judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies that seek to interfere with discharge of his/ her official functions and qualify as intimidation'. Former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in response to their letter held various meetings with the Supreme Court judges and even with the Prime Minister. He then formed a one-man Commission comprising ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the allegations of the IHC judges. However, Justice Tassaduq, due to trolling on social media declined to head the commission. Ex-CJP Faez then took a suo moto and constituted a seven-member bench to examine the IHC judges' concerns. The bench conducted three hearings on it. However, Justice Yahya, who was also a member of the bench, opposed the suo moto and recused from the bench. He in his order had proposed that as the IHC judges wrote a letter to the SJC; therefore, the Council should do something about it. Justice Yahya after becoming Chief Justice of Pakistan summoned the SJC meeting, wherein Justice Munib was appointed as head of a committee to propose amendments to the code of conduct. The sources said, in today's (July 12) Council meeting, Justice Munib tabled a comprehensive report in that regard. The Council members after examining the report resolved that the procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view therefore these required further deliberation. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Speaker 'concerned' over disqualification move in Punjab Assembly
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker Babar Saleem Swati has expressed serious concern over the suspension and possible disqualification of opposition members in the Punjab Assembly. In a formal letter addressed to the speaker of the Punjab Assembly, Swati criticised the recent decision to suspend 26 opposition lawmakers for 15 sessions and raised objections to the potential disqualification proceedings against them under Article 63(2) of the Constitution. Terming the move a misinterpretation of constitutional powers and contrary to democratic traditions, Swati emphasised that while maintaining decorum within the assembly is vital and Rule 210(3) of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure is relevant for disciplinary measures, any subsequent attempt to seek disqualification under Article 63(2) would constitute overstepping constitutional boundaries. He warned that such measures could lead to the misuse of constitutional provisions and pose a threat to the autonomy, sanctity, and dignity of all legislative assemblies across the country. Swati further highlighted that a combined reading of Articles 66 and 69 with Article 127 of the Constitution clearly provides immunity to members for their conduct within the House, and any external interference in such matters is unconstitutional. Stressing the long-term implications of the issue, the K-P Assembly speaker noted that actions like these could set a dangerous precedent, ultimately undermining parliamentary democracy and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Time for judicial assertiveness
Listen to article It's late but never too late. The decision from a statutory judicial body to uphold its independence and not to sway into executive pressure is most welcome. That is how justice must be seen to be done, especially at a time when the chips are down and courts and judicial officers are in a crisscrossing position after the 26th amendment that had come to negate its vibrancy and constitutional assertiveness. The National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC), in its 53rd meeting, resolved to devise a mechanism to report, investigate and resolve irritants that come to hinder the smooth sailing of judicial process. This is where the judiciary has lacked and the piling of cases, as well as maneuvering from other organs of the state, had cast it in a bad light. The fact that the superior body with the CJP in the chair brought to the fore the enigma of enforced disappearances was on the spot. This issue has been a constant annoyance for long as the courts found themselves perplexed and unable to assert their dictum. The plain-talking, thus, from Lords that the judiciary would not compromise on its constitutional duty to safeguard human rights must walk the talk, and visible change on the spectrum must be evident in their performance, decisions and implementation. The body's determination, likewise, to upgrade the system on modern lines by introducing technology; ensure a citizen-centric justice delivery; and institute a Commercial Litigation Corridor with special benches could not have been delayed any further. The judiciary for quite some time has been under the spotlight and the political upheavals have tested its independence. There are dozens of public interest litigations that have failed to see the light of the day, including those on the 2024 general elections, the civil-military tangle and the bulldozed legislations. It is incumbent upon the august courts to take a stance under the dictates of the Constitution and deliver justice, unmindful of their socio-political ramifications.
