Latest news with #SupremeCourtRules
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats: ECP says majority judgement premised on ‘erroneous conclusion'
ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) submitted the majority judgement in the reserved seats case is premised on the erroneous conclusion that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in addition to Sunni Ittehad Council(SIC) was before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) and both sought allocation of the disputed reserved seats to 'SIC or to PTI'. Barrister Sikandar Bashir Mohmand filed seven formulations before the Constitution Bench, which is hearing the review against the SC judgment on reserved seats. He said that the PTI in its CMA 5913/ 2024 filed on 26-6-2024 did not pray for allocation of the reserve seats to 'PTI itself' or to 'either PTI or SIC'; instead PTI asserted; 'the denial by the ECP of reserve seats to the SIC will result in the national assembly and the provincial assemblies losing their representative character. These seats cannot be allowed to any other party.' The ECP submitted that CMA 5913/ 2024 is stated to have been filed under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (inherit powers of SCP) and not under Order V Rule 2 (2) which is the relevant Rule for an application for striking out or adding a party. Therefore, PTI did not formally seek 'impleadment' in Civil Appeals 333 and 334 of 2024. The majority judgement incorrectly describes CMA 5913/ 2024 as 'PTI's application for impleadment'. As PTI was evidently not party to proceedings before the ECP, PHC and SCP, no relief could have been lawfully granted to it, even by exercising power under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. It submitted that the provisions of Article 51 and the Article 106 have been misconstrued in the majority judgement, which inter alia has distorted the scheme of the provisions of Article 51 and Article 106 as read with Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 and the Election Rules, 2017. The ECP stated that it is an essential component of the scheme of the provisions of Article 51 and Article 106 that the List of Priority for Seats Reserved for Women and Non-Muslims (Form 66) of each political party, as well as, the nomination papers for candidates in such list must be submitted and scrutinised prior to polling day and in parallel with filing and scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates contesting on general seats. The rationale being that the electors have notice of the candidates of the concerned 'political party' who may be elected on reserve seats before polling day. The direction in paragraph 9 of the majority judgement allowing the filing of the List of Priority for Seats Reserved for Women and Non-Muslims (Form 66) after the election has concluded and returned candidates have been notified is in conflict with the Election Programme and the democratic objective and rationale. The ECP stated that the timelines prescribed in paragraph 8 and 9 could only lawfully be prescribed by Parliament through legislation amending Article 51 Provisions (and Article 106 provisions), as well as, Sections 51, 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. The said timelines could also not be prescribed without striking down the Election Programme dated 15-12-2023 as amended on 22-12-2023 read with Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. The ECP submitted that the power to 'alter' the Election Programme vests solely with the ECP under Section 58 of the Elections Act, 2017 read with Article 218 (3) and Article 219 (d), as well as, the last sentence of Article 222 of the Constitution. Therefore, in any event such timelines could not be prescribed by the SCP, even under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. It contended that the timelines given in paragraphs 8-9 of the Majority Short Order are directly in conflict with the scheme and timeline in the Article 51 Provisions and also sections 51, 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. Therefore, same could not be given in exercise of power under Article 187(1). Since PTI was not a party to proceedings before the ECP, PHC and SCP and neither did it make an express prayer for allocation of the Disputed Reserve Seats to itself, this specific matter was never 'a case or matter pending before it' in terms of Article 187 (1) in consequently relief to PTI by invoking Article 187 (1) is impermissible.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Senior lawyers should not argue cases during summer recess: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) said senior lawyers should not argue cases during summer recess. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said junior lawyers should be given opportunities during vacation. "Senior lawyers should not argue cases during these partial working days," the bench told senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul. The lawyers were appearing in a plea filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal. One of the counsels in the matter mentioned the matter seeking adjournment as senior advocate Shyam Divan was not available. The top court has rechristened its traditional summer vacations as "partial court working days". The development was a part of an amendment in Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which have now become Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on November 5. "The length of the partial court working days and the number of holidays for the court and the offices of the court shall be such as may be fixed by the Chief Justice and notified in the official gazette so as not to exceed 95 days excluding Sundays," read the notification. The existing system had the Supreme Court taking the summer and winter breaks each year. The apex court, however, was not fully closed during these periods. During summers, "vacation benches" were set up by the Chief Justice to hear important and urgent matters. Notably, the term "vacation judge" has now been replaced with "judge" in the newly-amended rules. According to the recently-published 2025 Supreme Court calendar, partial court working days would start from May 26, 2025 and end on July 14, 2025.
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Senior lawyers should not argue cases during summer recess: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said senior lawyers should not argue cases during summer recess . A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said junior lawyers should be given opportunities during vacation. "Senior lawyers should not argue cases during these partial working days," the bench told senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi , Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul. The lawyers were appearing in a plea filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal . by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo One of the counsels in the matter mentioned the matter seeking adjournment as senior advocate Shyam Divan was not available. The top court has rechristened its traditional summer vacations as " partial court working days ". Live Events The development was a part of an amendment in Supreme Court Rules , 2013, which have now become Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on November 5. "The length of the partial court working days and the number of holidays for the court and the offices of the court shall be such as may be fixed by the Chief Justice and notified in the official gazette so as not to exceed 95 days excluding Sundays," read the notification. The existing system had the Supreme Court taking the summer and winter breaks each year. The apex court, however, was not fully closed during these periods. During summers, "vacation benches" were set up by the Chief Justice to hear important and urgent matters. Notably, the term "vacation judge" has now been replaced with "judge" in the newly-amended rules. According to the recently-published 2025 Supreme Court calendar, partial court working days would start from May 26, 2025 and end on July 14, 2025.
Business Recorder
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats case: SIC lawyer proposes three sets of relief
ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)'s counsel proposed three sets of relief that the Constitutional Bench may grant in reserved seats case, which the majority judgment has allotted to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Faisal Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of the SIC, argued that the court again and again has asked what kind of relief could be given in this instant case. He said there are three categories of relief. First, set aside the majority judgment and dismiss the SIC's appeal and uphold the Peshawar High Court (PHC)'s verdict. Second, the majority judgment is substituted with the judgment of any minority judgment. He said the majority judgment could be substituted with the judgment of either with the judgment of Justice Yahya Afridi or Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Third, the majority judgment is set aside and the appeal of the SIC is decided after rehearing. During the proceeding, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired from the counsel whether he considers the PTI elected candidates are independents. He asked why none of the 80 candidates came forward. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said if they are independent candidates then the SIC role ends in this case. Justice Musarrat inquired on which symbol Hamid Raza contested the general elections. She noted that the SIC's election symbol was 'Horse', but Hamid contested election on the symbol of 'Clock'. She further asked why Hamid Raza had not contested election on the platform of the SIC. On the question why the review petition should be dismissed, Faisal contended that a certificate which is filed by the lawyer with the petition is of critical importance; as if the grounds for review proved false then there are penal consequences of it. The SIC's counsel pleaded that the review petition could be filed by only those who were before the Court either in the original case or the appeal. He said some of the individuals who were not party in the appeal were allowed to file review petitions on the basis of the apex court's judgment in HM Saya. Justice Mandokhail questioned why a person aggrieved by the apex court's judgment could not approach the court. He said, suppose, the Supreme Court passes a judgment which infringes the right of a party/ person who was not party before the Court in the original case then why should not the court hear him. Justice Mandokhail noted that there is no mention of a party in the constitution or the Supreme Court Rules for review of any judgment or order. How come the Supreme Court, which is the final court, can pass a judgment or order without hearing a person or party, which could be affected by the judgment? Faisal argued that the court should not have allowed Hina Chugttai to file the review petition, as her party, PML-N, was before the court in the reserved seats case. He contended that if her petition was allowed then why an identical application of Kanwal Shauzaib was dismissed. 'What is not good for one is also not good for (the) other'. The bench noted that neither Kanwal Shauzaib nor her party (the PTI) filed an appeal against the order of the ECP, and Peshawar High Court. Faisal, earlier, argued that the majority judgment declared that all the candidates who had contested election as an independent are now the members of PTI in the parliament. Justice Mandokhail corrected by saying not all but only those who have mentioned in their nomination PTI, while others; i.e., 41 candidates were asked that they could join any political party. Faisal said since the Election Commission has not implemented the majority judgment; therefore, they continue to remain my members. He said that the ECP recognises the independents as the SIC members. Justice Mazhar said but after the judgment they approached the Election Commission and filed the declarations that they are members of PTI, as they themselves decide that they have joined PTI. The case was adjourned until tomorrow (May 29). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats in assemblies: SC allows live-streaming of proceedings of review pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court allowed live-streaming of proceedings of review petitions on allotting reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The Court, however, dismissed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) three applications. First, application raised objection on the composition of bench. Second, there should be same numerical strength that had heard the original case; third, that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday heard SIC's applications, filed through senior advocates, Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqui. Following the announcement of the short order, Faisal thanked the bench, saying despite the fact his applications were dismissed, he is grateful to the bench. 'Very grateful to you,' he again said. Before rising, Justice Jamal Khan told Faisal that his earlier conduct was unbecoming and unexpected. Faisal replied; 'I am ashamed of it.' After the conclusion of Makhdoom Ali Khan's argument, when the bench announced that they will reassemble after 10 minutes to announce short order. Faisal Siddiqui along with Hamid Khan in a loud voice said; 'Court cannot deny them the right of rebuttal.' The bench then granted him and Hamid Khan the time to rebut the points raised by Makhdoom in his arguments. Makhdoom, representing some MNAs of PML-N and PPP, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to SC's order de-seated, contended that the hearing of review petitions by the same bench under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been taken over by Article 191A of the constitution, adding now this provision will deal in constituting the constitutional benches. He said in view of Article 191A it is not practicable to place the review petition before the same bench that has delivered the judgment. Makhdoom argued that the present bench is not of 11 members, but 13 members. He said all the available judges in the SC were consulted, two judges were not made part of the bench as they had heard this case in the Peshawar High Court, while two judges dismissed the review petitions, therefore, the present bench comprises 11 judges. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
