Latest news with #MuhammadJunaidGhaffar
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Social media should not be used to spread negativity: SHC CJ
Chief Justice Sindh High Court (SHC) Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar has said that a plan to set up more courts and increase the number of civil judges has been finalised. He also urged that social media be used positively and not for spreading negativity in society. He was speaking at the inauguration of the Free Legal Research Service organised by the DG Lawyers. Justice Ghaffar said that through recent amendments, civil cases had been shifted from the SHC to the district courts to minimise inconvenience to litigants and simplify the transfer process. Issues relating to jurisdiction in civil matters had also been resolved, he added. The chief justice said that the plan for more courts had been discussed with the chief justice of Pakistan along with the construction of a Judicial Complex. He said that in a recent Supreme Court meeting, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) was also discussed and it was decided to frame a policy for it. He clarified that judgments could not be produced with one click nor could cases be prepared by pushing a single button, though IT support was being fully utilised. He said the SHC had upgraded its equipment, set up a research cell with civil judges, and improved its official website to include detailed judgments and case information. Orders downloaded from the site could now be verified through a tracking system, and the certified copy system was being computerised. Justice Ghaffar said that in Karachi, affidavits in high court cases could now be attested from any circuit bench, and work was under way to make the same facility available for district court affidavits. Judgments, along with case diaries, would also be uploaded to the website. Advising the public, he said: "People should not spread harmful content on social media, but share positive things." Speaking at the event, Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) President Barrister Sarfaraz Metlo said the bar was working for the welfare of lawyers and the supremacy of law and the Constitution, but its projects were not being publicised. He said that after the shifting of civil courts, the existing district court infrastructure had become insufficient and the number of civil judges needed to be increased. A free shuttle service was being run between the SHC, City Court, and Malir Court for lawyers' convenience, he added. The ceremony was attended by Justice Agha Faisal, bar officials, and senior lawyers. Under the free legal research service, lawyers will now have access to case information from 1947 to 2025.
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SHC issues contempt notices to FBR officials in Nomi Ansari case
Listen to article The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday issued contempt notices to senior Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) officials in a case filed by fashion designer Nomi Ansari, directing the advocate general and prosecutor general of Sindh to prosecute them. A two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, fixed August 20 for framing charges against Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue Zahid Masood, Commissioner Rizwan Memon and Assistant Commissioner Sehrish Javed. Ansari moved the court after his name was placed on the Passport Control List (PCL) on June 9 despite an earlier SHC order suspending proceedings in a tax fraud case against him and seeking reasons from the Inland Revenue Department for registering it. He was later also placed on the Exit Control List (ECL), preventing him from travelling to Dubai and representing Pakistan at a fashion show in the United States on July 9. The bench expressed displeasure that instead of complying with court directives, the FBR had gone ahead with registering a criminal case. The CJ noted that superior courts had laid down the procedure for criminal proceedings in tax matters and observed it was "too late" for the revenue body to file a counter-affidavit. FBR counsel Zahid Ibrahim sought time to submit a reply, but the bench said the officials and the federal government had failed to satisfy the court over their actions and proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings.
Business Recorder
20-06-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
SHC rejects pharma firm's pleas seeking hike in drug prices
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court dismissed two constitutional petitions filed by a leading pharmaceutical company, which requested for the increase of the Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) of certain drugs up to 10 percent instead of 7 percent annually, approved by the DRAP. The verdict, delivered by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Justice Mohammad Abdur Rahman, had the core of the legal dispute originated from a pricing of three commonly used medicines including Brufen (tablet) 200mg, Brufen Suspension 120ml, and Thyronorm (Tablet) 125 mcg. Abbott sought an annual MPR increase of up to 10 percent for the fiscal year 2023-24. The company's argument hinged on the historical categorization of these medicines as 'lower priced drugs' under Rule 10 of the Drug Pricing Policy, which traditionally entitled them to a CPI-linked increase of up to 10 percent. Abbott asserted that it had submitted the required calculations to DRAP on July 1, 2024, and that the authority's failure to issue a decision within the stipulated 30 days should, under Rule 7(2)(ii) of the policy, result in their self-determined revised prices being deemed approved and officially notified. DRAP, represented by the Assistant Attorney General for the Federation of Pakistan, contested this position. The regulatory body asserted that the MRPs of these specific medicines had, over successive years of CPI-linked adjustments, gradually escalated and now surpassed the maximum thresholds prescribed for 'lower priced drugs' under Rule 10(1) of the policy. Consequently, DRAP had reclassified them as 'other drugs,' thereby capping their permissible annual increase at 7 percent instead of the 10 percent sought by Abbott. This reclassification and DRAP's subsequent decision were upheld by its Appellate Board, compelling Abbott Laboratories to seek judicial intervention through the constitutional petitions, specifically challenging DRAP's order dated March 12, 2025, and previous orders from November 7, 2024, as 'illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, malafide, and of no legal effect.' The High Court, in its detailed judgment, rejected Abbott's argument for 'deemed notification' or 'deemed approval.' The court clarified that rules allow for the deemed issuance of revised MRPs only if the submitted calculations are 'in conformity with' and represent 'correct calculations' under the policy. Since Abbott's claim was predicated on categorizing the medicines as 'lower priced drugs' despite their MRPs having already crossed the officially notified thresholds, the court held that Abbott's calculations were not policy-compliant. Addressing Abbott's contention that the same medicines were recognized as 'lower priced drugs' in the preceding year despite exceeding the threshold, the court stated that even if such a regulatory oversight occurred previously, it could not justify repeating the error. The court underlined the legal maxim that 'two wrongs do not make a right,' rejecting the notion that a past administrative lapse could serve as a binding precedent or justification for current policy violations. The court also drew attention to a crucial procedural lapse by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination. The judgment noted that under Rule 10(2) of the Drug Pricing Policy, the Ministry is legally obligated to revise the thresholds for lower-priced drugs annually in accordance with CPI changes. This statutory requirement, the court observed, had not been fulfilled, thereby indirectly contributing to pricing, however, because Abbott Laboratories had not directly challenged this specific omission in its petitions, the court refrained from issuing a definitive order on this matter due to jurisdictional limitations. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that the issue 'warrants attention' and granted Abbott Laboratories the liberty to pursue this concern independently before the Ministry or any other competent legal forum. The court directed that any such representation filed by Abbott in this regard must be decided upon by the respondent within 60 days. The Sindh High Court found no merit in Abbott Laboratories' plea for a 10 percent price increase. It upheld the decisions of DRAP and its Appellate Board as 'legally correct,' given the undisputed fact that as of July 1, 2024, the MRPs of the disputed medicines had indeed exceeded the thresholds specified for lower-priced drugs, thereby disqualifying them from such categorization. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
