Latest news with #YahyaAfridi
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Afridi leaves for Hajj: Justice Muneeb sworn in as acting CJP
ISLAMABAD: Justice Muneeb Akhtar was sworn in as the acting chief justice of Pakistan on Friday, following the departure of CJP Yahya Afridi for the annual Hajj pilgrimage Friday. The oath-taking ceremony was held at the Supreme Court in Islamabad, where Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel administered the oath to Justice Akhtar. The event was attended by Supreme Court judges, senior lawyers, and officials from the Attorney General's Office. Justice Muneeb Akhtar, currently third in seniority among Supreme Court judges, will serve as the acting chief justice until June 6. Following this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is scheduled to assume the role of acting chief justice from June 6 to 10, during the continued absence of the chief justice. According to sources, CJP Yahya Afridi left for Hajj early Friday morning and is expected to return to Pakistan on June 10, which falls on the fourth day of Eid ul Azha. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
CJP for timely and effective utilisation of funds released to HCs
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) underscored the need for timely and effective utilisation of the funds released to respective High Courts. CJP Yahya Afridi, who is also the chairman Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (LJCP), on Thursday, chaired 19th meeting of the Governing Body, Access to Justice Development Fund (AJDF) in the Conference Room of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The CJs of all High Courts, secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, additional Secretary Finance Division and Secretary Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan attended the meeting. Justice Yahya appreciated the role of funds in capacity building and infrastructural development of the district judiciary throughout Pakistan. The Governing Body approved the suggestion floated by the High Courts for utilisation of the funds under Underdeveloped Regions (UDR) window exclusively for solarisation of courts and establishment of e-libraries for one year in the underdeveloped districts of the country. In addition, the projects of Lahore High Court for provision of missing facilities to female judicial officers and litigants in district courts were also approved. The apex body also approved mechanism for smooth and timely completion of projects funded from AJDF. The Governing Body approved the recommendations of the Technical Evaluation Committee, AJDF regarding projects undertaken through Legal Empowerment, Judicial and Legal Research and Legal Innovation Windows for timely completion. After deliberations, the apex body extended the purview of Free Legal Aid Committees to the High Courts by enhancing the lawyers' professional fee along with increase in funding limit to these Committees. Annual accounts and funds allocation for FY 2023-24 and budget for FY 2025-26 were also approved. Earlier, Syeda Tanzeela Sabahat, Secretary LJCP gave a brief overview of AJDF, its mandate and overall performance with regard to funds released under various AJDF windows specifically for infrastructure development and projects executed in Underdeveloped Regions to bring them at par with other areas of the country. She also updated about the provision of free legal aid to deserving litigants under District Legal Empowerment Committees (DLECs), provision of litigant-oriented conveniences and amenities, projects completed and trainings of justice sector stakeholders through Judicial Academies. Meanwhile, the CJP also presided over the 44th meeting of LJCP. He apprised the participants of a significant shift in the composition of the LJCP. He emphasised the need for regular meetings, wider publicity of the LJCP's mandate to solicit law reform proposals, and augmentation of research capabilities by engaging research associate alongside the existing team of researchers. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC accelerates death penalty case disposals
While the performance of constitutional benches at the Supreme Court remains underwhelming, the top court under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has achieved unprecedented acceleration in disposing of criminal cases, particularly those involving death sentences. According to the SC statement, 238 death sentence appeals have been decided during CJP Afridi's tenure. When he assumed office, 59,435 cases were pending in the apex court, which then comprised 16 permanent and two ad hoc judges. As of May 20, the number of working judges has risen to 25, and the case pendency has been reduced to 56,715. Since October 28, 2024, the court has disposed of 238 death sentence appeals, over 52% of the 454 total cases. At the start of Afridi's tenure, 410 death sentence appeals were pending. With 44 new appeals instituted since then, the number rose to 454, but rapid fixation and disposal have brought it down to 216. By comparison, only 26 such appeals were resolved during the corresponding period a year earlier. The SC statement credits this turnaround to the CJP's strategic focus on long-pending cases and the extension of working hours to hear them. Three dedicated benches were constituted and worked on over several consecutive weeks. The first bench, headed by Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, is learnt to have decided 125 appeals in April alone. The second bench was led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar, with Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. The third bench, chaired by Justice Naeem Afghan, included Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Aamer Farooq. "The judges comprising these benches convened prolonged sittings, frequently extending beyond normal court working hours. The unwavering commitment of Hon'ble Judges has culminated in the huge disposal of all death appeals instituted up to 2024. The Court will now proceed as next phase to the cases of life-imprisonment appeals, preferential hearing such cases where the convict has already served two-thirds of the sentence—an approach designed to afford prompt relief to deserving appellants while reinforcing public confidence in the even-handed administration of criminal justice." The apex court acknowledged the cooperation of counsel, prosecutors, prison officials and families. "Their patience and professionalism resulted in this progress. Their combined commitment demonstrates that, with focused and collaborative resolve, the justice system can translate in commendable output," the statement said. Report on CBs demanded However, lawyers argue that it is essential to release a performance report on the constitutional benches (CBs), functioning after the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The judges serving on these CBs have yet to evolve any rules or procedures for their operation. Notably, even a CB judge, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, has raised concerns about the absence of regulations. At the same time, the superior judiciary under CJP Afridi is confronting what many call its most significant challenge: executive influence over the nomination of CB judges and judicial appointments. Although CJP Afridi has prioritised the reduction of case pendency, he has so far been unable to devise a strategy to counter the executive's role in appointments. According to some legal observers, around 90% of judicial appointments are currently backed by executive authorities. Commenting on the performance of SC judges, Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii noted: "These are great numbers. But the only number that counts is the majority of the executive in the judicial commission.' 'It is with this number that the meaning of justice has been reduced in our country. There is no independent judicial organ. The challenge to this usurpation of a pillar of the state remains pending. Until the question of the sanctity of the constitution is settled, these numbers are meaningless." As for the performance of the constitutional bench, he added, 'As far as the constitutional bench is concerned, the less said the better'. 'We were told they were assembled to give us efficient and competent adjudication. After six months of doing almost nothing, we have only the military courts decision being overturned as proof of their mastery. Even that decision comes without any details yet afforded.' 'We are on our way to reviewing the reserved seats case without asking why the petitioner seeking review has decided not to implement it. With a bench which lacks the author judge and is headed by the author of a dissenting opinion which the majority had censured,' he added. 'When the lawyers of today tell their stories tomorrow, the period in which the 26th amendment was in vogue and these constitutional benches were functioning will be remembered as little more than a bad joke." Lawyers stress that the time has come for SC judges to unite in defence of judicial independence, instead of prioritising personal objectives.
Express Tribune
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CJP reviews progress on judicial reforms
Chief Justice Yahya Afridi chaired fourth interactive session on Monday at the Supreme Court, engaging with senior officials, stakeholders, and officers of the apex court to review progress on judicial reforms aimed at improving service delivery and expanding access to justice. During the session, the top judge commended the collective efforts of the Supreme Court's officers and stakeholders in driving transformative reforms. He lauded the dedication of the teams behind the successful implementation of the E-Filing system, which has significantly enhanced case management efficiency nationwide.
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
