Latest news with #JCP
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Transfer case first of its kind: CB head
The head of a constitutional bench (CB) hearing petitions filed against the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and a subsequent change in the judges' seniority list has noted that the case under review is first of its kind. During hearing of the case, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar agreed with counsel for one of the petitioners, Barrister Salahuddin, that there is no precedent in the past for a permanent transfer of a judge from one high court to another. "This is the first case of its kind involving such a transfer," he said. Earlier, Barrister Salahuddin argued that a judge's seat cannot be vacated through a transfer, and a permanent transfer would render Article 175-A of the Constitution ineffective. Article 175A establishes the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), which is responsible for appointing judges of the Supreme Court, high courts, and the Federal Shariat Court. He stated that under Article 200, only temporary transfers are permissible, and permanent appointments can only be made by the JCP. Justice Mazhar noted that under Article 175-A, new appointments can be made, adding that "appointment" and "transfer" have different meanings. Salahuddin said a meaningful consultation is essential in any judge's transfer, and without it, the entire process is a mere formality. He alleged that information was concealed and inaccurate details were provided during the transfer of three judges to the IHC in February this year. Justice Mazhar said the case involves interpretation of constitutional and legal points. He noted that three chief justices were involved in the transfer process and not everything was in the hands of the executive. Consent of the transferred judge is also obtained, he added. Salahuddin referred to civil service rules, stating that when two individuals are appointed on the same day, seniority is determined by date of birtha principle the SC has upheld in a previous reference. He also cited the Aslam Awan case, which called for clear rules on judicial seniority. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan stated that once the SC defines a principle, the rules will follow. Salahuddin requested that the Supreme Court decide the case based on civil service rules, past precedents, and the principle of equality. Justice Mazhar asked what becomes of a judge's previous service if he takes a new oath after his transfer from one high court to the another. "In India, even if a judge takes five oaths upon transfer, their determined seniority remains unaffected" but Pakistan does not have an "All Pakistan Cadre". He said the court is raising questions for the sake of clarity and informed judgment, noting that when a high court judge is elevated to the SC, their final pay certificate reflects 11 or 12 years of service. Salahuddin responded that while benefits and pension would be retained, the judge's seniority would be reset. He urged the court to consider the impact on the sitting judges of the court receiving the transferred judge. It would be unjust, he said, for a judge ranked 16th in one court to become the senior-most judge in another, ahead of those who were previously more senior. IHC Acting Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, one of the judges transferred to the IHC in February, ranked 16th in the Lahore High Court. Justice Mazhar reiterated that no such objections were raised by judges of the Lahore High Court and instructed the lawyer to stick to issues related to IHC. He added that if arguments conclude by June 16, the court may issue a short order after consultation with judges on the same day. Barrister Salahuddin requested the case be heard until the next day. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that some judges on the bench would not be available. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar commented that rebuttal arguments can include questions. The hearing was adjourned until 9:30am on June 16.
NDTV
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- NDTV
Why Hrithik Roshan Rejected Abhishek Bachchan's Role In Bunty Aur Babli
New Delhi: Shaad Ali's crime comedy film Bunty Aur Babli was released 20 years ago, on May 27, 2005. The film was led by Rani Mukerji and Abhishek Bachchan. In a recent conversation with Bollywood Hungama, the director made surprising revelations as he stated that Hrithik Roshan was the original choice for Abhishek Bachchan's role in the film. Shaad Ali, the director further revealed that Rani Mukerji was always the chosen leading lady. However, for the male lead, despite several conversations with Rakesh Roshan and Hrithik Roshan, the latter was not ready to enter the small-town space yet. Nevertheless, it was Hrithik who ended up coming up with the killer ending of Bunty Aur Babli. What Bunty Aur Babli completed 20 years of its release yesterday. The film had Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukerji in the lead, Amitabh Bachchan in a key role, and a cameo by Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. Director Shaad Ali revealed Hrithik was the initial choice for the male lead, he told Bollywood Hungama, "Yes, we did meet Hrithik as he was our first choice. We sat for a few months with him. Rakesh ji (Rakesh Roshan) liked the script a lot and he was keen that Hrithik should sign the film." Citing the reason why the War actor rejected the role, the filmmaker said, "Hrithik was not very comfortable entering the small-town space at that time. He did a very good job of it later in Super 30 (2019), though. Back then, he had his reservations. He did, however, have many creative ideas for the film. In fact, it was Hrithik's idea that Bunty and Babli should return to conning in the final scene. He reasoned, 'They're like Superman! They can't go back to normal life and never return to the con world.' Originally, the story ended with Bunty and Babli being let off and becoming law-abiding citizens. I should have thanked Hrithik in the credits." The Plot Bunty Aur Babli tells the story of two small-town con artists played by Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukerji, and a police officer (Amitabh Bachchan) who is on a neverending hunt to track them down. Rakesh Trivedi (Abhishek Bachchan) and Vimmi Saluja (Rani Mukerji) hide their identities and soon begin responding to the sobriquet Bunty Aur Babli. With one trick following the other, the duo became famous for their notorious acts across the country. How Bunty Aur Babli Ended Considering the director Shaad Ali acknowledged Hrithik for coming up with the ending, here's a recap. The film ended with Bunty Aur Babli giving up their criminal lives, as they become parents. For the sake of their newborn child, they express deep remorse and regret to JCP Dashrath Singh (Amitabh Bachchan) and promise to do better. The police officer has a change of heart, and the twist comes with a new offer from him. Three years later, he advises Bunty Aur Babli to use their skills as con artists, in a positive way to catch scammers and work for the government. Remake And Sequel For the unversed, Bunty Aur Babli was also remade in Telugu titled Bhale Dongalu. The 2008 film black-comedy film was directed by K Vijaya Bhaskar and had Tarun, Ileana, and Jagapati Babu in the lead. A sequel to Bunty Aur Babli was also made in 2021. While Rani Mukerji returned as Sonia Rawat, Saif Ali Khan was the male lead, Kunal Singh. It is an all new story of two individuals, who heard the story of the original Bunty Aur Babli and how they escaped from the clutches of law. Sonia and Kunal believe they could have the same destiny. The film also had Siddhant Chaturvedi and Sharvari Wagh in the supporting cast. The film had a lukewarm response at the box office. In A Nutshell For fans, it takes a little time to visualize Hrithik Roshan opposite Rani Mukerji in the film, which went on to become one of YRF's cult classics. Though Hrithik Roshan rejected Abhishek Bachchan's role in Bunty Aur Babli, his contribution in adding a twist to the ending sequence, deserves a mention.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Tony Khan calls out WWE's scheduling tactics - "This will go a lot differently than JCP"
Image via AEW All Elite Wrestling (AEW) President Tony Khan didn't hold back while addressing the growing rivalry between AEW and WWE during the post-Double or Nothing 2025 media scrum. With both promotions running events on the same weekend, Khan was asked about WWE's recent trend of counter-programming AEW pay-per-views. His response was both historical and defiant. 'It's pretty consistent,' Khan said. 'I'd say it's the most consistent event head-to-head scheduling since Jim Crockett Promotions. Saw a lot of scheduling that went that way. And I can tell you this will go a lot differently than that did.' The comparison to Jim Crockett Promotions (JCP) is a significant one. Back in the 1980s, JCP often clashed with WWE programming, with the rivalry culminating in the WWF running Survivor Series opposite JCP's Starrcade in 1987. The financial strain from such scheduling eventually led JCP to sell to Turner Broadcasting in 1988. AEW Double Or Nothing Post Show Media Scrum | Glendale, AZ 5/25/25 WWE counters AEW with strategic scheduling Khan's remarks come at a time when WWE appears to be intensifying its counter-programming strategy. On the same weekend as AEW's Double or Nothing, WWE held both NXT Battleground and Saturday Night's Main Event. Even more notably, WWE has lined up their second all-women's premium live event, Evolution, for the day after AEW's biggest show of the year - All In: Texas - set for July 12 at Globe Life Field in Arlington. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo Additionally, WWE's programming calendar includes a European tour during AEW's Forbidden Door event in London this August, signalling what many believe to be a clear attempt to divert attention and viewership. Despite WWE's attempts to dominate the schedule, Khan remains optimistic and assertive. His tone during the media scrum was confident, suggesting that AEW has learned from history and is better equipped to handle such competition. While Khan didn't reveal specific strategies to combat WWE's moves, his message was clear: AEW isn't intimidated, and it's prepared to maintain its momentum in the face of growing pressure. With both companies now regularly overlapping major events, the professional wrestling landscape is heating up like never before in the modern era. For fans, it's a flashback to the legendary Monday Night Wars of the late 1990s - only this time, the battle spans not just Monday nights but weekends and international tours as well. With AEW's All In: Texas and Forbidden Door on the horizon, and WWE ramping up its own counter-efforts, wrestling fans could be witnessing the birth of a new golden age, where competition drives creativity and both companies are pushed to deliver their very best. What's clear is this: the rivalry between WWE and AEW is no longer theoretical. It's unfolding live, and the industry may be better for it. Get IPL 2025 match schedules , squads , points table , and live scores for CSK , MI , RCB , KKR , SRH , LSG , DC , GT , PBKS , and RR . Check the latest IPL Orange Cap and Purple Cap standings.
Hans India
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Hans India
‘Can't expect police films to reflect reality, but ‘Sarfarosh' was an exception'
Bengaluru: Bengaluru Commissioner of Police, B Dayananda, said police films—especially Indian ones— rarely reflect reality. 'Sarfarosh' (the 1999 film starring Aamir Khan) came close to depicting us, to some extent, he added. 'But you can't expect films to depict reality. If they do, they are no longer feature films—they become documentaries,' said Dayananda. Joint Commissioner of Police (JCP) Traffic, M N Anucheth and Dayananda participated in the latest episode of Nikhil Kamath's podcast, 'WTF is…', available on Spotify. The video of the interaction has also been posted on Kamath's official YouTube page. Refuting Kamath's assertion that people fear the police because of how they're portrayed in films—where, by the end, the hero beats up a corrupt policeman—Dayananda said this perception no longer holds, especially in cities. 'We now have an equal number of films that lionise the force, like 'Dabangg' and 'Singam',' added JCP Anucheth. According to Dayananda, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. 'Reality is somewhere in between,' he said. For Anucheth, the only film that came close to depicting the reality of the police force is Govind Nihalani's 'Ardh Satya', made 40 years ago. However, he said the recent Kannada film 'Smiling Buddha', produced by Rishab Shetty, also stayed true to reality. Kamath, referring to a scene in 'KGF' where the hero, played by Kannada star Yash, destroys a police station with an 'automatic thing' to thunderous applause from the audience, remarked that people probably enjoy such scenes because it shows policemen being 'afraid' of someone too. Dayananda said the stereotype of the fearful or corrupt policeman has stuck because it has been repeated over the years. Anucheth brushed it off, saying it's all just for entertainment. 'Whatever works for people… I think we should leave it at that. There's no point in discussing it further. I've never psychoanalysed movies, in any case,' he added.
Express Tribune
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
26th Amendment fails to quell doubts
A general view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan building at the evening hours, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 7, 2022. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article The constitution of benches in high-profile cases has remained a contentious issue in the Supreme Court since March 2009. The term "like-minded bench" continues to carry weight even after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which mandated that the nomination of judges for constitutional benches be approved by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). The executive retains considerable influence over the JCP's decision-making, both in the appointment of judges and in their selection for constitutional benches. A section of the legal fraternity believes that judicial independence has been compromised due to how the JCP functions. Some senior apex court judges have been accused of facilitating the executive in its sway over JCP decisions. It is a matter of record that the country's three major political parties — PTI, PML-N and PPP – have all been on the receiving end of judgments passed by so-called like-minded benches since 2009. Before the 26th Amendment was enacted, chief justices were often accused of forming like-minded benches to secure favourable outcomes. The term gained further currency during the tenure of former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, when judges perceived as hostile to the PML-N were consistently assigned to politically consequential cases – decisions that, in many ways, reshaped national politics. Similar concerns were raised during the tenures of former CJPs Gulzar Ahmed and Umar Ata Bandial, with PML-N and PPP frequently questioning the composition of benches in sensitive cases. To introduce transparency in bench formation, the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 was passed, establishing a three-member committee of senior judges, including the chief justice, to constitute benches. Later, to further consolidate control over judicial appointments, the 26th Amendment was passed, granting the JCP the authority to select judges for constitutional benches, where the executive reportedly maintains significant sway. Judges who are perceived as likely to pose tough questions have, in many cases, been sidelined from constitutional benches. Despite the amendment having been in effect for over six months, no clear criteria have yet been formulated for nominating judges to these benches. Currently, 15 judges from across the provinces have been nominated to constitutional benches. However, several senior judges, considered not to be in the "good books" of the executive, have been left out, despite being among the most respected and competent members of the bench. The current committee responsible for selecting judges for constitutional benches is led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. This committee's conduct has also come under scrutiny for allegedly continuing the trend of forming like-minded benches in high-profile cases. For instance, the committee did not nominate Justice Shahid Waheed to the bench hearing the military courts case. Similarly, judges with expertise in tax matters were not included on the bench adjudicating the super tax case. More recently, the committee has drawn criticism for excluding five judges from the bench hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, which challenges the SC's July 12 decision. Faisal Siddiqi, counsel for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), has formally challenged the composition of this bench. Even sitting judgesJustice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasihave raised serious concerns about the composition of the larger bench hearing the review petitions. During Tuesday's hearing, signs of a divided bench were visible. Justice Aminuddin Khan appeared reluctant to grant time to SIC's counsel to submit an application contesting the bench's composition. However, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail intervened, stressing that the counsel should be afforded a fair opportunity to raise objections. Following this intervention, the bench decided to adjourn proceedings until Monday. A growing perception has taken hold: while former CJPs were seen as forming like-minded benches, the current dynamic suggests that "government-aligned" benches are now being formed, with the tacit cooperation of certain judges. Unless transparency is brought to the process of constituting benches, the legitimacy of the judiciary may increasingly come under question.
