Latest news with #Mandokhail
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug
A constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the request of one of the PTI counsels to defer hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case on a daily basis. Earlier, Salman Akram Raja, resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024 majority order of a full SC bench. He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution. "After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007 several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled." "The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated." During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018, and 2024. He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion. "However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats," he said. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how can the Supreme Court stop any politician from contesting elections independently. "Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehmanbeing major party leadersdecide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?" he asked. Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party's registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but that the SIC was not present in parliament, she said. Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the Sindh High Court Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the 'Awam Dost' party. "Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]" The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term "Kaptaan ka Sipahi". Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI. Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible." "Either they were more sensibleor they had a higher tolerance for pressure," commended Justice Hilali. Recalling the past political events, SIC's counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols. "It was a Saturdaya holidaybut the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be. At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand? He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP despite the fact that the ANP had not even held any elections "We had conducted elections but the ECP did not accept them. We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently," he said. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time while the PTI had already been given several years. "Your party constitution was made more foolproofwe can even say it's better than others," he noted Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan's request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9: 30am today. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024 general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court.
Express Tribune
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Judge highlights lack of rules to govern CBs
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, who is also a member of a committee that forms constitutional benches (CBs) of the Supreme Court, has raised questions on the absence of rules regulating CBs practice and procedure. During the hearing of the reserved seats case on Monday, Justice Mandokhail asked counsel for SIC Faisal Siddiqi to read provisions of Article 191A, which were inserted through the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 2024. The counsel read Article 191A (6), which says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution but subject to law, the judges nominated under clause (1) may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the CBs. This provision reflects that CB judges will frame rules regarding the regulation of the benches. However, Justice Aminuddin Khan responded that the word "may" has been used in that provision, which shows that rules framing is not mandatory. Monday's hearing in the reserved seats case reflects that the CB committee comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar is divided on the question of framing of rules for the CBs. According to the Supreme Court's November 20, 2024 press statement, the SC registrar was tasked to prepare draft rules regulating the practice and procedures of the CBs in consultation with Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with the final draft to be reviewed by the committee for approval. However, it is not clear whether the SC registrar shared the proposed rules with the committee for final approval. The committee constituted under Article 191A (4) of the Constitution had convened its third meeting on November 13, 2024 under the chairmanship of Justice Aminuddin Khan. The meeting, attended by Justice Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar, and the SC registrar, had deliberated on several critical matters aimed at improving the efficiency and transparency of case management, particularly for the CBs. Lawyers are already raising their voice over the absence of rules for nomination of judges to the CBs as well as the constitution of the CBs, as mentioned in Article 191A (6) of Constitution. CJP Yahya Afridi, in his capacity as the chairman of the JCP on March 3 formed a committee to draft an objective criterion for selecting judges for the CBs under Clause (4) of Article 175-A and for selection of judges for the CBs under Articles 191-A and 202-A. Justice Mandokhail is heading the committee. It is not clear whether the committee has finalized its rules. It has been witnessed that in the absence of rules, some SC judges, who are not in the good books of the executive, have been excluded from the CBs. Three senior SC judgesCJP Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtarare excluded from the CBs without reason. Even Justice Mandokhail on Monday expressed desire that all judges should be nominated for the benches. If all judges are included in the CBs then the composition of the CB committee will also change and the present members will become irrelevant. Now a debate has started as to why some judges are showing reluctance to support the nomination of all SC judges for the constitutional benches. Even no explanation has been given for excluding the six judges who were part of the original bench that heard the case from the larger bench hearing review petitions in the case. To ensure transparency, there is a need that rules should be framed for the nominations as well constitution of the CBs Now all eyes are on the 11-member larger bench to see whether it accepts or rejects objections to the bench which does not include the judges, who were part of the earlier bench without any valid reason. Some lawyers believe that the CB committee should at least nominate these six judges in the larger bench hearing reserved seats case. At least the committee should shift the burden and refer the matter to the JCP. It was witnessed that the bench was not properly constituted in Article 63A case. Now PTI lawyers accuse that reversal of judgement on the interpretation of Article 63A of Constitution had provided facilitation to the executive for passing the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Express Tribune
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
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.
Express Tribune
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
If institution is complainant, it cannot conduct trial, SC judge observes in military trial case
Listen to article The Supreme Court of Pakistan has resumed hearings on a high-profile case that has challenged the legality of trying civilians in military courts, with judges raising serious concerns over due process and judicial independence. A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing petitions against the military trials of civilians arrested after violent protests. Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal were also part of the bench. Justice Mandokhail questioned how an institution that has acted as a complainant can also preside over the trial. 'How can an institution that has itself been the complainant also hear the case?' he remarked. 'Has the federation not trusted its own civilian judiciary?' The court focused on whether those tried in military courts have been granted the constitutional right to appeal and fair trial. 'We have been asking about the right to appeal because it is a fundamental right,' Justice Mandokhail noted. Justice Hilali pointed out how criticism intensifies when civilian courts delay proceedings. 'If a judge goes on leave, it becomes a national issue that trials are delayed,' she has said, highlighting a perceived double standard. Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the bench and defended the military court process. He stated that the court-martial system follows a defined legal structure, and any death sentence is not implemented until appeals have been exhausted. 'The entire procedure is already on record with the court,' he said. Justice Mazhar said there should not be any problem in allowing fair trials. 'If we provide the right to fair trial, what is the issue?' he asked. The bench also revisited options previously discussed by a full court after the 18th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mandokhail asked the attorney general to explain which of those three options the government has pursued. The attorney general said he will respond after petitioner Khawaja Haris concludes his arguments. The court adjourned the hearing until Thursday.
Express Tribune
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Govt must move at cheetah's speed, not tortoise's pace: Justice Mandokhail
Listen to article Supreme Court of Pakistan judge, Justice Jamal Mandokhail has remarked that while the government should be moving at the speed of a cheetah, it is instead proceeding at the pace of a tortoise. He made the comments during a Supreme Court hearing on the establishment of the Climate Change Authority, Express News reported. The case, heard by a five-member constitutional bench led by Justice Ameen-ud-Din Khan, focused on the formation of the Climate Change Authority. Justice Mandokhail emphasised that climate change is a critical issue, and the government must expedite its efforts. The Additional Attorney General informed the court that a third advertisement had been issued for the appointment of the Authority's chairman. Justice Mandokhail questioned why the first two advertisements had failed to yield results. The Additional Attorney General explained that the top candidate's dual nationality had disqualified him, as per the government's policy on high-ranking appointments. Justice Mandokhail suggested that compromises might be necessary in finding the right candidate, adding that the real challenge lies in how the Authority will function in the provinces. The Additional Attorney General responded that the provinces had already nominated members for the Authority. Justice Ameen-ud-Din added that Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa had nominated Faisal Amin, the brother of the provincial Chief Minister, while Balochistan had appointed a university vice-chancellor. Justice Mandokhail questioned the expertise of the Balochistan appointee, stating that they lacked the relevant experience. The Additional Attorney General assured that they would contact the provinces to nominate technocrats instead. He also confirmed that the draft rules for the Authority were ready and would be sent to the Ministry of Law for approval. Justice Mandokhail expressed frustration that despite the law being passed in 2017, the chairman has not been appointed, and the rules have not been finalized. He also questioned the process of appointing heads of environmental agencies in the provinces. Secretary of Climate Change, Zulfiqar Younis, informed the court that 752 applications had been received in the previous round. Justice Mandokhail inquired why the other two shortlisted candidates were not considered, to which the Secretary replied that they did not meet the required standards. The petitioner's lawyer, Mian Samiuddin, argued that this case is about basic rights and expressed concerns over the difficulty of finding a suitable Pakistani expert. He noted that the Climate Change Authority has remained inactive since 2017. The court adjourned the hearing for one month.
