LHC admits irregularities in CJs authority case
Supreme Court's Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has observed that irregularities will continue to prevail at provincial high courts as long as relevant rules are not made.
Justice Mandokhail was part of a bench that heard on Friday a petition seeking to regulate powers of the chief justices (CJs) of the country's various high courts.
Earlier, the petitioner's lawyer, Mian Daud, revealed that some CJs gave increments of up Rs100m to certain high court employees. He said an employee at a provincial high court is now getting a salary equivalent to a high court judge thanks to these generous increments.
"There is also a case in which three notifications were issued [for the increment of an employee] in a single day," he added. Justice Mandokhail noted that judges should learn to exercise their authority in a proper manner.
During the hearing, the additional attorney general informed the court that the LHC had submitted its reply to the court notice. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the high court had not rejected the allegations levelled by the petitioner.
He noted that as the petition contained evidence with regard to the LHC only, the petition should be limited to the provincial high court. The court later directed the petitioner to modify his petition. The LHC was also asked to appoint its counsel. The case was later adjourned for three weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SL court stops state land grab from Tamils
Sri Lanka's top court halted Friday a government move to acquire land in northern regions still reeling from the consequences 16 years after the end of a decades-long civil war. Sri Lanka's north bore the brunt of the conflict in the 37-year-long Tamil separatist war, which was brought to a bloody conclusion in May 2009. Many among the Tamil minority lost their land title deeds during the years of displacement, and the area was also hit by the 2004 Asian tsunami. The Supreme Court order concerning nearly 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares) of land came a day after UN human rights chief Volker Turk ended a three-day visit, during which he urged the authorities to return private lands still occupied by troops. The UN estimates that at least 100,000 people died in the war, and that 40,000 of them from the Tamil minority were killed by troops in the final months of the conflict.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Dark moment in our history'
Listen to article The PTI has strongly condemned the Supreme Court's verdict in the reserved seats case, calling it a violation of constitutional and democratic principles. In a statement released by PTI's Central Media Department on Friday, Imran Khan's party described the verdict as a "continuation of state oppression" and "a robbery of the public mandate". Once again, the constitutional right of the PTI has been looted through a judicial bench, it said. The statement noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled in PTI's favour, recognizing its entitlement to the reserved seats but it has now contradicted that stance. The statement added that this verdict tramples the spirit of justice, the people's vote, and the right to representation. "The PTI presented constitutional points and legal arguments before judicial forums for months, but it has become evident that the courts exist only to serve the elite." The PTI alleged that the reserved seats were distributed "like spoils of war" among parties that lacked public support, calling it a blatant mockery of democracy. It went on to say: "This verdict marks one of the darkest days in Pakistan's constitutional history. First, the electoral process was attacked, the bat symbol was taken away, party workers were arrested, and now the public mandate has been rejected." Calling the current system "devoid of public, constitutional, and democratic values," the PTI declared that this is now a system where speaking the truth is a crime, demanding rights is rebellion, and voting for Imran Khan is an unforgivable sin. "We may be disappointed by the courts, but not by the people. And we know that in the end, victory will belong to truth, the Constitution, and Imran Khan," it stated. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the decision. In a statement, he congratulated the government's legal team and appreciated it for the tireless work. He said the correct interpretation of the law in the decision established the supremacy of the Constitution and law. He urged the opposition to work together with the government and play its positive role for development and prosperity of the country.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Govt basks in two-thirds glory
Listen to article Finally, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on Friday emerged as the single largest party, with the party and its allies simultaneously securing two-thirds majority in the National Assembly after the Supreme Court allotted reserved seats to the ruling coalition. The current parliamentary as well as political equation in the country changed after the top court turned down the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni-Ittehad Council (SIC)'s request for the allotment of the reserved seats after hearing a review petition. On July 12, 2024, the Supreme Court had declared PTI a parliamentary party and held that PTI was eligible to get reserved seats that were earlier distributing among other parties in the national and other assemblies by the Election Commission of Pakistan. However, the SC ruling in the review petitions has now reversed the same. At the moment, the total number of seats of the ruling alliance stands at 237, including 125 of the PML-N, 74 of PPPP, 22 of Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), five of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), four of Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP), one each of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), National Party (NP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Zia PML-Z) and four independents. On the contrary, the opposition alliance has total 99 seats, including 80 of SIC & independents – primarily PTI – 11 of the Jamiat-e-Ulmae-e-Islam-Fazl (JUIF) and one each of the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) and Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen (MWM). After the results of the Senate elections in April 2024, the PMLN-led ruling alliance has a dominating position in the upper house of the parliament with 61 seats, including independents, as opposed to the opposition parties' 24 seats. The majority of the coalition government has put it in a commanding position in both the National Assembly and Senate as it can now even go for constitutional amendments without facing any hindrance from the opposition parties in both the houses. For any government to obtain a two-thirds majority in the 336-member National Assembly, the backing of 224 lawmakers is required. Previously, when the government had fell short of passing the 26th constitutional amendment, it had managed to win support from an opposition party JUI-F. Now, the ruling alliance won't need support from the opposition benches to pass any constitutional amendment, which requires two-third votes from the Parliament. The reserved seats had also led to a face-off between the Parliament and the Supreme Court as Speaker National Assembly, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, had written a letter to the ECP, urging it to respect parliamentary sovereignty in the allocation of reserved seats to PTI. The letter had come after the SC had ruled that independent candidates, after winning elections, could join political parties and alter their political allegiance followed up by a note released by eight SC judges directing ECP to implement the judgment at the earliest. Through his letter, the Speaker had pointed out that Parliament passed an amendment to the election law, saying it prohibited independent candidates who join a party post-election from switching their affiliation. He had emphasized the amendments to the elections act must be applied when the ECP allocates contested seats, highlighting that the SC judgment was rendered before the new law was passed and thus become outdated in light of the legislative changes.
