Latest news with #JusticeKhan
Express Tribune
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
LHC calls for legal cover for police surveillance apps
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has urged the Punjab government and other concerned authorities, including the inspector general of police (IGP), to take immediate and concrete steps to provide legal cover for the digital applications currently being used by law enforcement to apprehend absconders and suspects. Justice Muhammad Waheed Khan made these observations during the hearing of a case involving the arrest of an accused in Lahore declared an absconder in a case registered with Karachi police through digital surveillance applications such as the E-Police App, Travel Eye App, Hotel Eye App, and E-Gadget App. While acknowledging the effectiveness of these technological tools in tracing and arresting individuals involved in criminal cases across the country, Justice Khan noted the absence of any statutory backing that governs their use. He remarked that, aside from a standing order issued by the IGP Punjab in December 2020, there exists no legislation, subordinate rules, or official directives that legalise or regulate the operation of these apps. Justice Khan emphasised the significant role these applications play in improving the efficiency of criminal investigations and ensuring timely arrests, noting that they directly contribute to the prompt administration of justice. However, he stated that the absence of a legal framework undermines the legitimacy and sustainability of these digital initiatives. In light of this, the judge directed the Registrar of the Lahore High Court to bring the matter to the attention of the relevant legislative bodies to consider the formulation of appropriate laws or rules.
Express Tribune
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Case delisting controversy refuses to die down
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan on Thursday directed the Deputy Registrar Judicial to submit the High Court Rules to clarify whether the chief justice could withdraw a case from the court of a judge while pending hearing and send it to another bench. During the contempt proceedings against the deputy registrar, the judge said that he would pen down in his decision that there was no scope in the law to transfer a case in the way the contempt of court plea of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Mashal Yousafzai was delisted from the court's cause list. The matter started on Wednesday after all the cases related to the jail meetings of the PTI founder were slated for hearing before a three-member bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Sardar Sarfaraz Dogar on Thursday. The cases included Yousafzai's petition, which was to be heard by Justice Khan. The judge took notice of the cancellation of the cause list of his court. On the court notice, Deputy Registrar Sultan Mahmood appeared in the court and told the judge that the instructions had come from the chief justice's office. Continuing the hearing on Thursday, the judge remarked that he would not issue contempt of court notice to anyone. However, he stressed that the matter was not about the leader of a political party but about setting principles. Appearing on court notice, Islamabad Advocate General (AG) Ayaz Shaukat said that the court spoke its mind on Wednesday and now he should be heard. He added that the controversy arose to determine whether Yousafzai was the lawyer of the PTI founder or not. The AG referred to a statement from the focal person of the PTI founder who had stated that Yousafzai was no longer the lawyer of the PTI founder. Because of that controversy, the AG said, all the cases related to the PTI founder were combined and placed before a larger bench. However, Justice Khan remarked that the court had appointed a commission on that matter. He told the AG if a meeting of the commission with the PTI founder was arranged the matter would have concluded in mere 30 seconds. However, Justice Khan added, this matter was not before the court at the moment, rather the court was looking into the question whether a pending case could be transferred in this way. He said that when a lawyer tells the court that he was a lawyer, the court did not seek confirmation from every petitioner. The judge observed that the matter of combining cases and forming a larger bench was related to the judge who had been hearing the case. Accordingly, he added, the judge referred the matter to the chief justice and on that the chief justice issued an order. The court then addressed the AG: "Will you give the arguments before the larger bench on the contempt of court application?" He added that the contempt of court application would be heard by the same judge whose order had been violated. The hearing was postponed until after Eid.
