Latest news with #NaeemAkhtarAfghan
Express Tribune
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC judges term civilians' court-martials unconstitutional
Listen to article Supreme Court Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan on Friday released a dissenting opinion in the case concerning the trial of civilians in military courts, declaring such court-martials unconstitutional. The 35-page minority decision firmly states that the jurisdiction of court-martials was exclusively limited to military personnel and cannot be extended to ordinary civilians. The judges ruled that the application of military jurisdiction to civilians was unconstitutional. The dissenting note critically examines the broader assumption that civil courts are incapable of dealing with high-profile terrorism cases, suggesting instead that this narrative was misleading. It observes that it has generally been portrayed that civil courts have failed to handle grave offences such as terrorism, and that military courts are the only remedy, but the reality is quite the opposite. Read More: SC greenlights military trials of civilians Recalling past precedent, the judges noted that military courts were temporarily authorised in 2015 to hear certain terrorism-related cases. However, the experiment failed to eliminate terrorism, partly because military officers lack the judicial experience required to adjudicate complex criminal matters. The decision observes that, globally, terrorism cases are not tried in military courts. It argues that criticism of the criminal justice system is misplaced and notes that acquittals in civil courts often result from poor investigation, weak witnesses, or politically charged cases, not from judicial incompetence. It pointed out that according to Article 25 of the Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. The principle of equal protection ensures that all citizens are treated alike under the law, irrespective of their background, race, religion, political affiliation, action or other classifications. 'This is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring that the law applies equally and no one is above the law. Treating citizens differently, without a reasonable classification amount to discrimination.' 'This happens when two equally placed persons or groups of people are treated differently. Discriminating individuals in legal proceedings on account of their acts or nature of an offence, is a violation of the principle of equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law,' it further noted. 'The security of life and liberty of a person is a fundamental right, to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees and ensures that citizens have the right for protection from harm, physical danger, potential risks and threats to their life, unjust or illegal detention or imprisonment and of any action that could take away their freedom or life, in all circumstances,' the dissenting note read. Read more: SC annuls decision against civilian trials in military courts It further observed that an independent judiciary can act as a check on the government's power to ensure the security of life and liberty of citizens. The criminal justice system entails a set of laws and principles that provide a procedure, aim to protect the life and liberty of citizens, and to ensure order in society. Article 10 of the Constitution ensures safeguards as to the arrest and detention of a person, with a right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice. It is also made sure that no person shall be detained in custody beyond a period of twenty-four hours without the authority of a magistrate. 'The courts martial established under the MJS, consisting of executive, are not independent and impartial. They do not provide the constitutional protection of security of life and liberty of a person, and safeguard as to his arrest and detention. While detained in military custody, the provisions of jail manual are not applicable to the persons accused of military crime. Courts' martial proceedings are in-camera.' It further noted that the right of the accused to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice, guaranteed by the Constitution, was subject to the approval of the Chief of the Army Staff or the convening officer, as provided by rule 82 of the Pakistan Army Act, Rules 1954. 'This is a fundamental right of a person under sub-Article (1) of Article 10 of the Constitution, which cannot be made conditional. The custody of accused of offence under clause (d) and the procedure adopted by the courts martial are inconsistent with, takes away and abridge their fundamental rights, which is violative of Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution.' Read more: Military courts allowed to pronounce verdicts in May 9 cases The note stated that the right to fair trial and due process is universally accepted as a fundamental right, therefore, the legislature, realising its importance and necessity, inserted Article 10A in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010. 'Fair trial and due process help limiting abuse by Governments and State authorities and ensure integrity and fairness of the legal system. Due process has a requirement that the legal matter pertaining to civil rights and obligations and a criminal charge against a citizen be resolved according to law, established rules and principles, on the basis of evidence presented.' The dissent also criticises both the federal and provincial governments, stating that instead of investing in and improving the civil justice system, they opted for court-martials of civilians, a move that exceeds constitutional boundaries. The judges observed that the punishments handed down to civilians involved in the May 9, 2023, events by military courts were beyond their jurisdiction and therefore null and void. The note concludes by reiterating that the delivery of justice falls within the constitutional domain of the civilian judiciary. The rule of law demands that every citizen be afforded the right to a fair trial, the decision states.
Express Tribune
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB questions need for judges' transfers to IHC
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, a member of the Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, on Monday questioned why judges from other high courts were transferred to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) instead of appointing judges from other provinces to fill the vacant posts. The five-member bench, led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar, was hearing multiple petitions challenging the "illegal" transfer of three judges from various high courts to the IHC, as well as the revision of the IHC judges seniority list following the transfers. According to the written order of the proceedings, the bench issued notices to all respondents, including the transferred judges. The bench also issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) and all the provincial as well as the Islamabad advocates general for further hearing on April 17. The order noted that the office raised objections towards maintainability of the petitions, which would be taken up on the next date of hearing after serving notices to all respondents and law officers. The court also issued notice in all stay applications in the connected cases for Thursday. The bench took up seven constitutional petitions under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. The petitions called into question the notification of February 1, 2025, issued by the President of Pakistan under Article 200 of the Constitution for the transfer of Judges to IHC. According to the written order, all the petitioners had sought the declaration that the notification was unconstitutional. The order further stated that one petition had been filed by five sitting IHC judges against upsetting their original seniority reckoned before the transfer. "Therefore, their petition will be treated as the lead petition and the rest will proceed conjointly," the order said. During the proceedings, according to the written order, counsel for the Karachi Bar Association Faisal Siddiqi referred to an application in which it was requested that the February 3 seniority list be suspended. It requested the bench to issue direction that major administrative decisions, including constitution of benches and fixation of cases, be undertaken by the acting Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar only after substantive consultation with two senior-most judges of the IHC, during the pendency of the petition. Muneer A Malik, who is representing the five IHC judges, sought interim relief, as a Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting was being on held on April 18 to consider the nomination of the permanent IHC chief justice. The bench adjourned the matter until Thursday – one day before the JCP meeting. Malik said that even though an explicit provision for the transfer of judges from one high court to another high court was provided under the Article 200, but for exercising such powers by the president, there must be some justiciable reasons. Malik stated that such discretionary powers should be exercised judiciously and transparently rather than being exercised in an unfettered or unbridled manner without any rhyme or reason. He added that the transferred judges were required to take a fresh oath before resuming their offices in the IHC. The counsel said that the five judges had filed their representation before the IHC chief justice to resolve the issue of seniority, but it was rejected. "Therefore, the seniority list compiled as a result of dismissal of their representation is also liable to be set aside and the original seniority should be restored." According to the counsel, the Article 200 should be read with other constitutional provisions, which talks about the independence of judiciary, separation of power and autonomy of high court. Justice Mazahar noted that the chief justices of relevant high courts and the chief justice of Pakistan had given their consent to the transfer of judges. Malik replied that the notification was silent as to why the transfer of judges was made without highlighting the public interest. He further said that they could not shut their eyes about the background wherein six IHC judges were continuously under attack by the executive since their letter written to Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding the interference of the agencies in their judicial functions. Justice Afghan noted that there was need to know about the total strength of the IHC judges and asked why judges were transferred to IHC, instead of making new appointments. He said that the IHC was established under an act of parliament, so what the act said about the transfer of judges. Now the debate has started as to whether this bench will halt the JCP to postpone the consideration regarding the appointment of permanent IHC chief justice until final decision in this case. The notice has also been issued to JCP secretary as a respondent. It is to be noted that Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has already expressed apprehension on the seniority of transferred judges. Although he is backing the transfer of different high courts judges to the IHC on linguistic basis.
Times of Oman
09-02-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Pakistan: No jobs for families of deceased civil servants under new govt rule
Islamabad: Pakistan's government has abolished the policy that allowed family members of deceased civil servants to automatically receive government employment, the Express Tribune reported. This decision aligns with a Supreme Court ruling from October 18, 2024, which deemed the practice unconstitutional and discriminatory. The move comes as the government instructs all ministries and divisions to strictly adhere to the new guidelines, the report added. In the notification issued by the Establishment Division, it was made clear that the policy of offering government jobs to the families of deceased civil servants has been withdrawn, following the Supreme Court's ruling. According to the Express Tribune report , the new policy will take effect immediately from the date of the ruling. However, the family members of deceased employees will still be eligible for other benefits under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package. The ruling does not apply to the families of law enforcement personnel who lose their lives in terrorist attacks. Appointments made before the Supreme Court's decision will remain unaffected by the ruling. The Supreme Court's ruling dismantled the government's job quota scheme for the family members of civil servants, declaring it discriminatory and unconstitutional. Under the scheme, a widow, widower, spouse, or child of a deceased or medically retired employee was appointed to a government position without the need for open competition or merit-based selection, reported the Express Tribune. In its ruling, the Court noted that the scheme was specifically discriminatory against low-grade employees and their families. "These jobs neither are nor can be made hereditary," the order stated. The 11-page judgment, authored by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, emphasised that public sector employment could not be "parcelled out to the functionaries of the state," as it would undermine the principles of fairness and equality. The Constitution mandated that equal employment and economic opportunities must be provided to all citizens. The Court also explained that any policy or law that contradicted constitutional principles was subject to judicial review. "Any law, policy or rule was subject to judicial review if it was manifestly inconsistent with the constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the citizens," the order read. The ruling struck down previous orders, declaring that appointing a widow, widower, spouse, or child of a civil servant--who had passed away during service or become permanently disabled--under this quota scheme was "discriminatory and ultra vires to Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution," the Express Tribune added in its report. However, the Court clarified that the decision did not affect appointments already made under the hereditary quota for current employees. Federal and provincial authorities were instructed to withdraw these laws, aligning them with the constitutional framework. (ANI)
Express Tribune
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
No jobs for families of deceased civil servants under new govt rule
Listen to article The government has abolished the facility of offering employment to a family member of a government employee who passes away during service, Express News reported. The Establishment Division has issued formal instructions to all ministries and divisions to implement the Supreme Court's decision regarding this matter. According to the notification issued by the Establishment Division, this facility has been withdrawn in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling dated October 18, 2024. The decision will come into effect from the date of the Supreme Court's ruling. However, the family members of deceased employees will still be eligible for other benefits under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package. The memorandum clarifies that the decision will not apply to the families of law enforcement personnel who lose their lives in terrorist attacks. Additionally, appointments made prior to the Supreme Court's decision will not be affected by this ruling. Following this government decision, all ministries and divisions have been instructed to strictly enforce the new policy. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled to dismantle the government's job quota scheme for the family members of civil servants, declaring it discriminatory and unconstitutional. Under the scheme, a widow, widower, spouse, or child of a deceased or medically retired employee was appointed to a government position without the need for open competition or merit-based selection. In its ruling, the Court noted that the scheme was specifically discriminatory against low-grade employees and their families. "These jobs neither are nor can be made hereditary," the order stated. The 11-page judgment, authored by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, emphasized that public sector employment could not be "parcelled out to the functionaries of the state," as it would undermine the principles of fairness and equality. The Constitution mandated that equal employment and economic opportunities must be provided to all citizens. The Court also explained that any policy or law that contradicted constitutional principles was subject to judicial review. "Any law, policy or rule was subject to judicial review if it was manifestly inconsistent with the constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the citizens," the order said. The ruling struck down previous orders, declaring that appointing a widow, widower, spouse, or child of a civil servant—who had passed away during service or become permanently disabled—under this quota scheme was "discriminatory and ultra vires to Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution." However, the Court clarified that the decision did not affect appointments already made under the hereditary quota for current employees. Federal and provincial authorities were instructed to withdraw these laws, aligning them with the constitutional framework.
