Latest news with #ConstitutionalBench
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Assam exploring how to ‘push back foreigners' without involving Foreigners Tribunals, Himanta says
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday said that the state government is exploring the possibility of 'pushing back' suspected foreigners into Bangladesh without going through the existing process of identification via Foreigners Tribunals. To support this, he cited a 1950 law, which was issued before the institution of Foreigners Tribunals in the state. He stated that the Supreme Court, while hearing the question of the validity of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, had stated that this law is still in force. 'When the Supreme Court had taken up the matter of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, that was under a Constitutional Bench. The Bench had mentioned that… that the Assam government does not have to keep approaching the judiciary in the matter of identifying foreigners. There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order. The Supreme Court has said that this law is still in force. According to this law, the DC has the authority to issue an order for immediate pushback. For whatever reason, this had not been brought to our notice by our lawyers, and we were not aware of it either. In the past few days, this has come to our attention. So we will discuss this,' he told reporters on the sidelines of an event. Last week, Sarma had confirmed that the state is carrying out 'push backs' of people who had been declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners Tribunals by invoking a February 4 Supreme Court order. The top court had pulled up the state for not initiating the process of deporting declared foreigners lodged in the Matia detention centre. Civil groups as well as sections of opposition parties have argued that these 'push backs' violate the procedures of deportation. On Saturday, Sarma said, 'Pushbacks will continue and the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused because of the NRC (National Register of Citizens), will be sped up again. And this time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we won't send them to a tribunal; we will just keep pushing them back. Preparations for this are going on.' Foreigners Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies which determine whether a person presented before them, usually referred by the border police or those listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls, is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court.
Business Recorder
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC limits army courts' powers under Constitution
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under Article 175 (3) of the Constitution, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, have no jurisdiction to prosecute persons accused of clause (d) of the Act. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Friday issued his verdict on the intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court judgment on military courts. A seven-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan on May 7 by majority of 5-2 had set aside the SC judgment and restored Section 2 (1) (d) and Section 59 (4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The majority had referred the matter to the government/ parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/ legislation in the Army Act, and allied Rules for providing an independent right of appeal in the High Court, against the conviction awarded to the persons by the court martial/military courts, within a period of 45 days. Two members of the Constitutional Bench, namely, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Naeem, disagreed with the majority judgment, and set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by the courts martial for 9th May 2023, incidents, and declared them to be without jurisdiction. Justice Mandokhail judgment said that the jurisdiction to try civilians extended to courts martial, especially, in the light of the judgment of FB Ali ceases to exist. The discretion of 'prescribed officer' assigned to him by virtue of Section 94 of the PAA relating to transfer of cases of civilians to courts martial, in respect of civil offences under clause (d), is no more available. However, the courts martial have a limited jurisdiction to the extent of prosecuting members of the Armed Forces for violation of military laws and civil offences. It said that the logic behind the separation of the judiciary from the executive, under Article 175 of the Constitution, is that criminal offences are against the State, whereas, the executive is responsible for administration of the same. A person who breaches a law, is an accused of the State, therefore, the executive having an interest into the matter, cannot itself perform as a judge to punish the accused. It is for this reason, sub-Article (3) of Article 175 of the Constitution mandates that the judiciary shall be separated from the executive, within 14 years of commencement of the Constitution. The judgment noted that upon insertion of clause (d) in subsection (1) of Section 2 and subsection (4) in Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), the courts martial comprising serving officers of the Army are prosecuting the persons accused of offences of clause (d). It said that the purpose of adding the said clause in the PAA is that the offences mentioned therein are prejudicial to the interests of the Army. Admittedly, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that no one ought to be a judge in his own cause or in which he has an interest. This principle is strictly observed to avoid any instance of bias, resulting into injustice. Under such circumstances, the courts martial and the forum of appeal under the PAA, manned or run by the executive, under the command, control and discipline of the Federal Government, cannot be regarded as unbiased, independent or impartial forums. They cannot protect the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens in a criminal charge or for the determination of their rights and obligations. Thus, courts martial and the forum of appeal are violative of Articles 2A, 175 (3) and 227 of the Constitution. The judgment held that the courts martial are administered judicially, not as a part of the judicature erected under Article 175 of the Constitution, but as part of the organisation of the Armed Forces itself. The jurisdiction of courts martial trying military personnel for service offences and civil offences is different from judicial power exercised by ordinary courts for the general offences against the State. The judgment said: 'We have no doubt in our minds that being a special legal framework, the PAA is primarily a disciplinary statute that applies exclusively to a specified group of people; i.e., members of the Armed Forces.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats case: Ruling ‘amended' constitution, says constitutional bench
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench observed that majority judgment in reserved seats case amended the constitution, as three days mentioned in the constitution for joining a political party by independents in Parliament is increased to 15 days. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned whether the judges should be concerned with what is written in the constitution and the law or the extraneous factors? He noted that constitution was re-written and there is history because it was done in the case of Article 63A of the constitution too. He said when the law is clear then there is no need of 'read in' or 'read down', and the Court has to adhere to the provisions. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Reserved seats case: SIC lawyer proposes three sets of relief The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Justice Musarrat Hilali said that they majority [judgment] has discussed 13th January 2025 judgment, which review has been pending. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi said they (the majority) have expressed their mind, while alluding to the fact of the case. He asked what the oath of a judge says, and what is expected of him to deliver judgment on the basis of principles or law? Faisal Siddiqui, representing SIC, argued that 11 judges, including Justice (retired) Qazi Faez, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Yahya Afridi, in their verdicts maintained that all the independent candidates are Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members and the PTI is entitled to 78 reserved seats of women and non-Muslims in the National and the provincial assemblies. He requested the bench to dismiss the reviews petition, in which, additional grounds have not been filed. However, Justice Amin told him that the review petitions have been filed only against the majority judgment, while the judgments of other judges are intact. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said: 'We (Justice Jamal and ex-CJP Qazi Faez) have maintained that only those independent candidates who in their nomination papers mentioned PTI and attached the party are the PTI members in the parliament.' He questioned how they can compel anyone who has contested election as an independent to join a particular party, or force anyone not to contest election as an independent. Faisal argued that all the 13 judges held that the PTI-backed independent candidates cannot join the SIC, and also reserved seats cannot be given to it. However, they maintained that the PTI was entitled to the reserved seats, adding the disagreement was on the number of PTI-affiliated candidates. The judges also disagreed with the majority judgment on timeline and the process described for joining the PTI by the independents, the SIC counsel submitted. He said that Justice Yahya had left this issue to be decided by the ECP. Justice Amin said whether any of the party during the original proceedings discussed that the reserved seats should be given to the PTI. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether only one and not all the political parties deserve fair treatment? Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned that Hamid Raza who had established the SIC in 2013 and has been its chairman then why he contested general elections as an independent instead of on the SIC platform, and after winning the election joined the SIC, and PTI-backed independent candidates were asked to join the SIC. She said if a party does not have presence in the parliament then how the independent candidates can join it. She asked what the PTI-backed independents have mentioned in their forms when they were joining the SIC. Faisal argued that the PTI's Intra-Party Election (IPE) was not accepted by the ECP, Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Supreme Court and it was deprived of election symbol. He said that the 11 judges in their judgments stated that the ECP has in fact misunderstood and wrongly applied the Supreme Court judgment that the PTI is out of February 2024 elections. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats case: SIC lawyer proposes three sets of relief
ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)'s counsel proposed three sets of relief that the Constitutional Bench may grant in reserved seats case, which the majority judgment has allotted to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Faisal Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of the SIC, argued that the court again and again has asked what kind of relief could be given in this instant case. He said there are three categories of relief. First, set aside the majority judgment and dismiss the SIC's appeal and uphold the Peshawar High Court (PHC)'s verdict. Second, the majority judgment is substituted with the judgment of any minority judgment. He said the majority judgment could be substituted with the judgment of either with the judgment of Justice Yahya Afridi or Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Third, the majority judgment is set aside and the appeal of the SIC is decided after rehearing. During the proceeding, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired from the counsel whether he considers the PTI elected candidates are independents. He asked why none of the 80 candidates came forward. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said if they are independent candidates then the SIC role ends in this case. Justice Musarrat inquired on which symbol Hamid Raza contested the general elections. She noted that the SIC's election symbol was 'Horse', but Hamid contested election on the symbol of 'Clock'. She further asked why Hamid Raza had not contested election on the platform of the SIC. On the question why the review petition should be dismissed, Faisal contended that a certificate which is filed by the lawyer with the petition is of critical importance; as if the grounds for review proved false then there are penal consequences of it. The SIC's counsel pleaded that the review petition could be filed by only those who were before the Court either in the original case or the appeal. He said some of the individuals who were not party in the appeal were allowed to file review petitions on the basis of the apex court's judgment in HM Saya. Justice Mandokhail questioned why a person aggrieved by the apex court's judgment could not approach the court. He said, suppose, the Supreme Court passes a judgment which infringes the right of a party/ person who was not party before the Court in the original case then why should not the court hear him. Justice Mandokhail noted that there is no mention of a party in the constitution or the Supreme Court Rules for review of any judgment or order. How come the Supreme Court, which is the final court, can pass a judgment or order without hearing a person or party, which could be affected by the judgment? Faisal argued that the court should not have allowed Hina Chugttai to file the review petition, as her party, PML-N, was before the court in the reserved seats case. He contended that if her petition was allowed then why an identical application of Kanwal Shauzaib was dismissed. 'What is not good for one is also not good for (the) other'. The bench noted that neither Kanwal Shauzaib nor her party (the PTI) filed an appeal against the order of the ECP, and Peshawar High Court. Faisal, earlier, argued that the majority judgment declared that all the candidates who had contested election as an independent are now the members of PTI in the parliament. Justice Mandokhail corrected by saying not all but only those who have mentioned in their nomination PTI, while others; i.e., 41 candidates were asked that they could join any political party. Faisal said since the Election Commission has not implemented the majority judgment; therefore, they continue to remain my members. He said that the ECP recognises the independents as the SIC members. Justice Mazhar said but after the judgment they approached the Election Commission and filed the declarations that they are members of PTI, as they themselves decide that they have joined PTI. The case was adjourned until tomorrow (May 29). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
22-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Super tax hearing adjourned
A five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, adjourned the hearing on a case concerning the imposition of super tax until Tuesday. During the hearing, counsel for a company argued that Section 4B should be aligned with the income tax law. He pointed out that a 4 per cent super tax is imposed on banking companies, even if their income is as low as Rs10. In contrast, an individual earning over Rs400 million is subjected to a 3 per cent super tax. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi observed that the super tax was abolished in 2002 for all companies except banking institutions.
