Latest news with #SunniIttehadCouncil
Business Recorder
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats case: Constitutional interpretation required, says counsel for SIC
ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC's) lawyer accepted that constitutional interpretation is required in the reserved seats case. Justice Aminuddin Khan, heading a 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, inquired from Faisal Siddiqui, counsel SIC, whether he accept the constitutional interpretation in this 'lis'. He replied, yes. The bench on Monday was hearing the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Peoples' Party and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Reserves seats review hearings: SC urged to include original bench judges Hamid Khan appearing on behalf of SIC informed that he has filed three applications and Advocate on Record (AOR) must be knowing whether those have been numbered or not? However, the bench told him that they have not received his applications, and directing him to check about the applications. Hamid later on informed that the Registrar's Office neither accepted the application nor returned to them. He; however, said that the office considers the application scandalous. Faisal Siddiqui, another counsel of SIC, raised objections on the constitution of the bench. Firstly, that a same numerical strength of the bench, which heard the original case, should hear the review petitions, secondly two judges, who had dismissed the review petition, should not be excluded. In support of his arguments he cited the Supreme Court Rules and the judgments. He told that such situation had also emerged in the past when the two members had recused from the bench. Justice Amin said that on the desire of two members the bench was reconstituted, adding their dissenting note would be made part of the final judgment. Justice Mazhar said that propriety demands that their votes would be counted. He; however, questioned that after dismissing the review petitions what they will say, adding will they be sitting in the bench as 'silent spectator'. Justice Hilali said they (two judges) have refused and declined to sit in the bench. She inquired from Faisal why he now wanted them to be in the bench. Justice Amin then said the two judges have accepted the jurisdiction of the bench and one of the members, who had rescued, was also not part of the original bench. Faisal argued that the judgment under review was passed by a 13 judge bench, adding it is the fundamental principle that review should be heard by the same number of judges who had passed the judgment. 'I have not heard of any jurisdiction that lesser bench hears the review petitions,' he added. Justice Mazhar then asked him to draw distinction between the Supreme Court Rules and the Article 191A of the constitution. He said that Article 191A has given overriding effect on Article 185. Faisal contended that there are many judgments of the apex court on review that based upon the SC Rules. He said that the basis of fundamental principles is the conventions. Justice Mandokhail questioned after the 26th Amendments whether the SC Rules are binding upon the constitutional bench. Whether the Rules have backing of the constitution, he questioned and said the Article 191A supports the hearing of matter by the constitutional bench. He said the Judicial Commission of Pakistan gives panel of judges for the constitutional bench, while the Committee, set up under Article 191A decide about the constitutional benches. He remarked whether anyone likes it not, but the 26th Amendment is the law of the land now. Faisal Siddiqui proposed that if those two judges could not be included in the bench, then at two more judges be made part of the constitutional bench in order to complete the strength of the bench; i.e., 13. Justice Mazhar then asked what would be status of two judges' order, as they have dismissed the review petitions. What will happen about the decision of two judges? He further inquired if those two judges sit in the bench then would they review their order? The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserves seats review hearings: SC urged to include original bench judges
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court urged that the judges, who were members of the original bench that passed the judgement on reserved seats, and are presently available, be included in the bench for hearing of review petitions. The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) on Friday filed three miscellaneous petitions, including an objection to the bench, for a live broadcast of the proceedings, and to decide 26th Constitutional Amendment case before the reserved seats case. It is further prayed that the review bench be headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (Yahya Afridi). A full Court comprising 13 available judges of the Supreme Court namely, Qazi Faez Isa (ex-CJP), Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi (incumbent chief justice), Justice Amin-ud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Sayed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan on July 12, 2024 delivered the judgment on reserved seats. Eight judges, headed by senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, gave a majority opinion, while Justice Yahya Afridi wrote a separate note, neither dissenting nor agreeing entirely with the majority opinion. Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel wrote a partly dissenting opinion. Justice Amin uddin Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote strong dissenting opinion. The petitioner contended that the review petitions, filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), remained pending contrary to the normal practice of the apex court of fixing the review petitions within three months of the judgement sought to be reviewed. There is a strong apprehension that the delay was deliberate on the part of the previous Chief Justice who was perhaps waiting for the 26th amendment. He submitted that after the Supreme Court has been fully packed with 23 permanent judges, one Acting Judge and two Ad-hoc judges, these review petitions were fixed on 06 May 2025 before a bench of 13 judges after lapse of nearly ten months of the impugned judgement. He stated that the 13-member bench so constituted did not include six judges – Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan – who had heard and decided the case. These judges are all available in the Supreme Court. In their place six judges namely Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, who were not members of the original bench, have been included. The petitioner contended that it is well settled that there is stark difference between an appeal and review jurisdiction inasmuch as a review petition/application is heard by the same bench which passed the judgment. An appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings while review jurisdiction is governed by Article 188 of the Constitution read with the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. It submitted that Rule (8) of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 provides that a review application shall be posted before the same Bench which delivered the judgement, while Article 188 expressly provides that such jurisdiction is to be exercised in accordance with Rules. He stated that the original provision as passed by the Constituent Assembly, while 191 A (5) passed by the Parliament lacked legitimacy and moral authority, therefore, as there is a patent conflict between the provisions of Article 188 and Article 191 A (5) of the Constitution, the later provision to the extent of placement of review applications before the Constitutional Bench is void and ultra vires the Constitution. It submitted that a Constitutional Bench is chosen by the Executive or a party to the lis (PML-N and PPPP) has appointed members to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. It is stated that Article 191 (5) in so far as it transferred review jurisdiction to the Constitutional Bench is in conflict with Article 10 A of the Constitution and thus void. The petitioner claimed that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan that constitutes 'Constitutional Bench' is virtually under the control of the Executive and thus can control the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Proxies core driver of India conflict, NA told
The National Assembly was informed on Wednesday over 90,000 people, including civilians, security personnel and law enforcement officials, lost their lives due to terrorism in the country. Responding to a point of order raised by Sunni Ittehad Council MNA Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry said Pakistan has paid a steep price in the war against terror, both in terms of human lives and economic losses, which run into hundreds of billions of dollars. He emphasized that in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, security forces and law enforcement agencies have relentlessly pursued and neutralised the perpetrators to safeguard cities and communities. Addressing concerns over the recent resurgence of terrorist activities, Dr. Tariq raised questions about the underlying causes behind the new wave of violence. He expressed serious concerns about foreign interference, stating that investigations indicate the involvement of Indian-backed proxy groups operating within Pakistan. These groups, he said, are being actively targeted and dismantled by the country's security apparatus. "The core driver of the ongoing conflict with India is the presence of the foreign-sponsored elements. Our forces are engaged in a broader national effort to neutralize such threats," he said. Dr Tariq reiterated the government's commitment to the full implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP), stressing that it is being enforced nationwide. He also highlighted the role of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chief minister in Apex Committee, where decisions are taken through consensus and inter-agency coordination. The minister clarified that military and law enforcement operations are not arbitrary but are intelligence-driven, targeting areas where terrorists have established safe havens and are planning attacks. "There is a strong, unified demand from the people of Pakistan to eliminate terrorism in all its forms," the minister said. Afghan refugees Parliamentary Secretary Mukhtar Ahmad Malik informed the National Assembly that approximately 1.3 million Afghan refugees have been repatriated from Pakistan so far. Responding to a question raised by MNA Anjum Aqeel Khan during the National Assembly session, Malik stated that around 3 million Afghan refugees had been residing in Pakistan. Of these, 813,000 held Afghan Citizen Cards (ECC), while 1.3 million possessed Proof of Registration (PoR) cards. He emphasised that under the One Document Regime, Afghan nationals who wish to enter Pakistan for medical treatment, education, or business purposes are welcome, provided they obtain the appropriate visa and carry valid documentation. Meanwhile, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) member Shazia Marri praised the Pakistan armed forces for giving a strong and befitting response to Indian aggression, saying it has made the nation proud. Speaking on a point of order in the National Assembly, she said that Pakistani women stand shoulder to shoulder with the military in the defense of the motherland.
Express Tribune
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Of benches and judges!
Listen to article As an outcome of the controversial 26th amendment, the formation of the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench is under the scanner. Conventionally, the constitution of benches and the nomination of 'like-minded' judges come under discussion as and when it pertains to hearing of high-profile litigations. This time around, a review petition challenging the majority decision of July 12, 2024 on the reserved seats is under question. The Sunni Ittehad Council's intention to challenge the composition of the existing 11-member constitutional bench has stirred a debate on how long this precedent of mistrust in superior judiciary will linger on the premise of political connotations. Our political history testifies to the fact that judicial decisions, at times, have not been sacrosanct and leaned on the wrong side of the divide for reasons of exigency, trampling the judiciary's credibility in contravention of the dictates of the Constitution. In this Armageddon, all political parties were found to be tainting their image for a time-served concession as they went on to torpedo the spirit of rule of law and merit in decision-making. This has to come to an end, and the way forward is to unite on a monolithic principle of letting the judiciary be free from executive coercions and dispense its duties with independence and fair play. It is also incumbent at this point of time to revisit the 26th amendment and take a judicial review to ascertain whether the principle of the separation of powers is functioning as per the Constitution. The so-called 'court-packing' under the amendment has led to widespread societal unrest, as the executive holds a sway over judiciary in terms of bench formation, allegedly dictating it and sidelining senior judges. The case under review, and the bench in vogue, have also hit some legal snags as the review petition is not being heard by the honourable judges who authored the July 12 decision. This altercation, already raised by a bona fide judge on the bench, as well as the SIC concerns on judges' leaning must get a fair hearing too for the sake of transparency and broad-based legitimacy.
Express Tribune
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Lacking quorum again, NA session put off
National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq on Friday expressed regrets over the opposition's walkout from the proceedings of the lower house of parliament and subsequently pointing out of a lack of quorum that led to the adjournment of the sitting. The speaker stated that the opposition chose to walk out from the house at a time when important issues were on the agenda. He stressed that the most of the questions on the Question Hour agenda were submitted by opposition members. "It is disappointing that the opposition chose to walk out during proceeding when the house was discussing important national issues," he said. "It is regrettable that the opposition distances itself from parliament's core responsibilities," he added. The speaker said, 30 members participated in a debate on water canals issue, but most of the opposition parties, except for the Jamiat JUI-F were absent on that day. Due to a lack of quorum on Friday, Deputy Speaker Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah adjourned the session until Monday. Sadiq also clarified that the PPP had submitted a resolution on the canals issue on April 7, and the matter was discussed in detail on the same day. However, another similar resolution was again submitted by the opposition on April 10. Addressing the broader concerns raised by the opposition parties, the speaker continued, those who frequently spoke out on issues such as Palestine and border security often failed to show up when these matters were scheduled for debate in the house. The National Assembly session started with Speaker Ayaz Sadiq in the chair. However, the sitting was interrupted when Iqbal Afridi of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) pointed out the lack of quorum. The session was suspended for 30 minutes, and later adjourned due to insufficient attendance. Meanwhile, the energy ministry informed the house in a written reply that "thanks to the government's efforts", the circular debt declined by Rs9 billion during the first six months of the current fiscal year – from Rs2,393 billion in June 2024 to Rs2,384 billion in December The energy ministry said that the recovery of power distribution companies (DISCOs) had improved. The ministry presented some aspects of the government's strategic roadmap for 2025-29, including initiatives to identify power losses, and real-time monitoring to pinpoint unauthorised consumption. "In order to identify localities with high power losses, a computerised energy audit of distributors and transformers will be carried out," the response read. "An advanced metering infrastructure system will be implemented for real-time monitoring and loss assessment to identify unauthorised consumption." The ministry said that this strategy required that all consumers had electricity meters, thus consumers without them would need to have them installed. "The strategy includes recovery action against defaulters who are permanently disconnected under the Land Revenue Act [and] and area bundle contractors will be installed in areas with high power theft," the energy ministry wrote. The ministry added that under the government's strategy, tube wells would be solarised to reduce dependence on grid electricity and a recovery scheme would be introduced for local administrations and Discos to collect arrears.
