Latest news with #Mazhar
Time of India
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
When Zeenat Aman spoke about being by husband Mazhar Khan's side despite him cheating on her, she nursed him through his illness but finally left as he got addicted to prescription drugs
Zeenat Aman isn't just an inspiration for women because she broke stereotypes on screen or showed how to be confident, but the actress has gone through immense struggles in her personal life. Yet, she continued to remain resilient and is quite positive today about life, with no bitterness. The actress went through a bad marriage with Mazhar Khan and she realised it was a mistake just in the first year of marriage. But she decided to stick by her decision as it was against everyone's will. She had opened up on the turbulent times in her personal life in an interview with Simi Garewal. Zeenat had said, "The first year of marriage, I realised I had made a mistake but since I had made the decision against everybody's will, I decided to make it work. I'm not necessarily saying that it was the best thing for him either. It was a difficult time since the first year because I was pregnant with my first child and Mazhar was not there. There was a big article in Stardust magazine at that time about the woman that Mazhar was seeing. It's reality.' Despite Mazhar's reality, she wanted to stick by the commitment which she made. Mazhar later also fell really ill and she was just by his side to take care of him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cost Of Amusement Park Equipment From Mexico Might Surprise You - See Tips Amusement Park Equipment | search ads Click Here Undo "I tried everything under the sun. We were in and out of every hospital in Mumbai. I learned how to give injections, to do dressing. He was living with a bag outside his body for 18 months, I learned how to change that bag. I did everything there was to do. I flew overseas and found the best doctor. When that thing was over and the problem was sorted, it had taken a toll on me. I was very close to a nervous breakdown.' However, later Zeenat left only because he was addicted to his prescription drugs. She said, "He had stopped helping himself and was inflicting further damage on himself and I couldn't stay there and watch him do that. He was taking seven painkillers a day. At the end, his kidneys did pack up and this was after I had opted out. When I left, I still cared. I have no guilt because I am sure 99 percent women wouldn't have lasted as long and as honestly as I did. ' Mazhar Khan passed away in 1998 due to kidney failure. After his death, Mazhar's mother and sister completely cut her and the children out. They were not given a single penny after his death and didn't even allow the actress to attend his funeral. Zeenat has two sons - Zahaan Khan, Azaan Khan. The actress was last seen in 'The Royals'. Check out our list of the latest Hindi , English , Tamil , Telugu , Malayalam , and Kannada movies . Don't miss our picks for the best Hindi movies , best Tamil movies, and best Telugu films .
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.
Express Tribune
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'Judges' transfer cleared by 4 judicial forums'
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on Monday raised questions over the claim that transfer of three provincial high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) was interference on part of the executive in judicial affairs, noting that every transfer was made after approval of four different judges. However, some members of the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, hearing petitions filed against the transfer and the subsequent change in the IHC judges' seniority list, stated the executive did keep the chief justicesof Pakistan and respective high courtsin dark about the seniority issue. On Monday, a five-member CB led by Justice Mazhar, heard the judges' transfer case. During the hearing, Karachi Bar's lawyer Faisal Siddiqi argued that the IHC was established under Article 175 of the Constitution, which pertains only to the provinces regarding the appointment of judges. He said judges cannot be transferred to the IHC, and even if a transfer does occur, it cannot be permanent nor would a fresh oath be required upon return of that judge to his original high court. Justice Mazhar asked whether Article 200 has become ineffective after the enforcement of Article 175-A. Siddiqi responded that under the current transfer system, the powers of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) are being undermined, which is against the spirit of the Constitution. Siddiqi stated that seniority develops over decades and tampering with it overnight through executive powers is an authoritarian move. Justice Mazhar noted that the transfer process involves approvals at four stages: the approval of the chief justice of the concerned high court, the approval of the chief justice of the receiving high court, the approval of the judge being transferred, and the approval of the chief justice of Pakistan. "If any one of them refuses, the transfer cannot proceed. If the process were in the hands of the executive, it would be a different matter, but here it requires the approval of four judicial forums." Siddiqi told the court that the transfer was made with bad faith and that the judiciary was kept in the dark about the sensitive issue of seniority. Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan argued that under Article 200, the transfer of judges can be permanent or temporary. A temporary transfer is mentioned in the notification and comes with additional benefits, while a permanent transfer entitles the judge to official residence. Justice Shakeel Ahmed questioned whether the oath and seniority of judges are to be decided by the law secretary. He asked whether anyone had sought the law secretary's opinion on the matter. "Why did the law secretary include clarifications on seniority and oath in the final summary? He remarked that the need for the law secretary to clarify that transferred judges do not need to take a new oath raises concerns. The Supreme Court then adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday).
Business Recorder
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Lawyer tells SC there is disconnect between SC Rules and SC Act
ISLAMABAD: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was told that there is a disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to Supreme Court's order removed, said till the time new rules are framed the judges have to follow the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. However, he told the bench that there is disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. It would be considered that the review petitions are being heard by a 13-member bench, though on the first day of hearing after preliminary arguments the two judges had dismissed the petitions and opted not to sit in the bench, adding the Court order was signed by all the 13 judges. He contended that on May 6 when the case was heard no objection was raised by any lawyer on the constitution of the bench. All the 13 members of the bench heard the case, and 11 judges issued notices to the respondents, while two judges declined. Makhdoom said the review petitions have been filed against the majority (eight judges) judgment, but the Court order was signed by all the 13 members. He said suppose tomorrow five more judges take a stance that the petitions are non-maintainable then votes of two judges will be counted and included with five judges' decision, and the Court order would by 7 to 6, but will be signed by all the 13 judges. Justice Mazhar said it was argued by the respondent's counsel that though the two judges have dismissed the review petitions, they should not be excluded from the bench. Makhdoom said if the request of the other side is accepted it will be contrary to the law laid down in the judgments of Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Panama cases. He said the two judges have decided the merit of the case; therefore, now what they will say as already explicitly have expressed their opinion, adding there is no provision of second review. 'My task is to persuade the remaining judges and not two who have recused themselves,' he said. Justice Amin again said that they have not excluded them, but as per their wish the bench was reconstituted. Earlier, Hamid Khan, representing Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued on live-streaming of the proceeding of review petitions, saying the original case was live-telecast on all TV channels, and the entire nation benefited from it. Justice Mazhar stated that the proceedings were shown live as a pilot project, as at that time Full Court in administrative side had given its approval. He said after the 26th Amendment condition has been imposed in Article 191A for framing of rules, adding unless the draft rules are approved by the Full Court, this cannot happen. Hamid Khan then argued that till the decision on petitions against 26th Amendment, the reserved seats should be adjourned. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Justice Mazhar slams misuse of review powers
Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has emphasised that a review of a judgment or order is a serious legal measure that should only be undertaken when there is a clear and undeniable error or oversight on record that results in a miscarriage of justice. In a seven-page additional note authored during the hearing of a review petition, Justice Mazhar wrote that if the error in the judgment is so obvious and apparent, so material that, had it been noticed prior to the rendering of the judgment, the conclusion would have been different, then a review petition is justified. He observed that the constitution does not impose any restriction on the Supreme Court's power to review its earlier decisions or even to depart from them. " Nor does the doctrine of stare decisis stand in the way, so long as the review is warranted due to its significant impact on the fundamental rights of citizens or in the interest of public good. The Court is also competent to review its judgment or order suo motu, without any formal application." The note was issued alongside a ruling by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, which dismissed the review petition and stressed the need to discourage the filing of frivolous reviews. Justice Mazhar, in his additional note, clarified that the review jurisdiction of the SC is not a fallback option for unsuccessful litigants to reopen cases, but a narrowly defined judicial tool meant to correct glaring and consequential errors. He observed that while interpreting provisions of law or the Constitution, some errors might be apparent on the face of the record and cause substantial injury, necessitating remedial intervention to uphold justice. Such instances, he explained, may include the discovery of new and significant evidence that was not available despite due diligence, a mistake or error clearly visible on the record, or other sufficient cause. The ground of "error apparent on the face of the record", he added, applies to both civil and criminal review petitions. "For such review to be entertained, the specific ground must not only be mentioned in the certificate of the advocate, but also be conspicuously spotted in the review petition, rather than relying on sweeping or irrational grounds having no nexus with the case," the note read. "Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the Judges of the apex Court to correct their errors, because the principles of law enunciated in their judgments are binding on all other courts in the country under Article 189 of the Constitution." "Orders based on an erroneous assumption of material facts, or those made without adverting to a provision of law, or reflecting a departure from the undisputed construction of law and the Constitution, may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and can be rectified." Justice Mazhar expressed concern over the growing trend of filing review petitions indiscriminately, often backed by certificates from advocates that merely repeat arguments already addressed in the original case. "At present, it has become a custom or routine practice to file review applications unwarily and injudiciously, based on certificates issued by advocates that merely imitate the grounds already urged and decided in the main petition or appeal, without specifying any genuine error in the judgment or order which merits its reversal." He noted that it was high time that the practice be denounced and condemned, as it constituted "nothing but a waste and depletion of the precious time of the Court and places an unnecessary burden on its docket".
