Latest news with #ex-CJP
Business Recorder
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats case: Ruling ‘amended' constitution, says constitutional bench
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench observed that majority judgment in reserved seats case amended the constitution, as three days mentioned in the constitution for joining a political party by independents in Parliament is increased to 15 days. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned whether the judges should be concerned with what is written in the constitution and the law or the extraneous factors? He noted that constitution was re-written and there is history because it was done in the case of Article 63A of the constitution too. He said when the law is clear then there is no need of 'read in' or 'read down', and the Court has to adhere to the provisions. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Reserved seats case: SIC lawyer proposes three sets of relief The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Justice Musarrat Hilali said that they majority [judgment] has discussed 13th January 2025 judgment, which review has been pending. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi said they (the majority) have expressed their mind, while alluding to the fact of the case. He asked what the oath of a judge says, and what is expected of him to deliver judgment on the basis of principles or law? Faisal Siddiqui, representing SIC, argued that 11 judges, including Justice (retired) Qazi Faez, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Yahya Afridi, in their verdicts maintained that all the independent candidates are Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members and the PTI is entitled to 78 reserved seats of women and non-Muslims in the National and the provincial assemblies. He requested the bench to dismiss the reviews petition, in which, additional grounds have not been filed. However, Justice Amin told him that the review petitions have been filed only against the majority judgment, while the judgments of other judges are intact. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said: 'We (Justice Jamal and ex-CJP Qazi Faez) have maintained that only those independent candidates who in their nomination papers mentioned PTI and attached the party are the PTI members in the parliament.' He questioned how they can compel anyone who has contested election as an independent to join a particular party, or force anyone not to contest election as an independent. Faisal argued that all the 13 judges held that the PTI-backed independent candidates cannot join the SIC, and also reserved seats cannot be given to it. However, they maintained that the PTI was entitled to the reserved seats, adding the disagreement was on the number of PTI-affiliated candidates. The judges also disagreed with the majority judgment on timeline and the process described for joining the PTI by the independents, the SIC counsel submitted. He said that Justice Yahya had left this issue to be decided by the ECP. Justice Amin said whether any of the party during the original proceedings discussed that the reserved seats should be given to the PTI. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether only one and not all the political parties deserve fair treatment? Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned that Hamid Raza who had established the SIC in 2013 and has been its chairman then why he contested general elections as an independent instead of on the SIC platform, and after winning the election joined the SIC, and PTI-backed independent candidates were asked to join the SIC. She said if a party does not have presence in the parliament then how the independent candidates can join it. She asked what the PTI-backed independents have mentioned in their forms when they were joining the SIC. Faisal argued that the PTI's Intra-Party Election (IPE) was not accepted by the ECP, Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Supreme Court and it was deprived of election symbol. He said that the 11 judges in their judgments stated that the ECP has in fact misunderstood and wrongly applied the Supreme Court judgment that the PTI is out of February 2024 elections. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Review petitions: SIC counsel for hearing by regular bench
ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)'s counsel said review petitions filed under Article 185 of the Constitution should be heard by a regular bench till the Rules for the constitutional benches are framed. 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). Faisal Siddiqui concluded his arguments and now Hamid Khan, another lawyer of SIC, will start his contention for a live broadcast of the proceedings, and to decide 26th Constitutional Amendment case before the reserved seats case from Wednesday (today). Faisal argued that once a bench is constituted then a judge cannot be excluded from the bench unless he recuses himself from the bench or there is any legal or constitutional reason for it. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked him to first read Court's 7th May order, saying all the 13 judges have signed that order, so there remain no confusion, and to avoid bad experience of the past in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections case whether it was 4-3 or 3-4 judges' order that order was signed by all the 13 judges. He said by the majority of 11-2 the notices were issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan and the respondents. He said the matter was referred to the committee, constituted under Article 191A of the constitution, to form a new bench. On the other hand, the two judges, who dissented, did not incline to issue notices to the respondents and decided to recuse themselves from the bench, said Justice Mazhar, and added when they do not want to sit; therefore, the bench was reconstituted. He inquired from Faisal that if those judges are included in the bench then what questions will they ask? Justice Mazhar further asked whether the two judges would review their decision. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned; 'Whether we also have to review our order.' He asked the SIC counsel to cite the laws that after the recusal those judges again be included in the bench. Faisal Siddiqui referred the SC judgment on reference, filed by the government against ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, to reconstitute the bench. He also cited a note of Justice Qazi Faez, which says that a judge can't be excluded from the bench, despite the fact she/he has passed an order.' Justice Hilali asked Faisal; 'Why are you insisting that we agree with you.' Justice Amin said the two judges had participated in the hearing conducted on May 6 and after hearing the arguments of the PML-N, PPP and ECP lawyers recused from the bench, and the bench was reconstituted on their wish. Justice Musarrat Hilali said that the judges have touched the facts and law of the case and ruled on review petitions in detailed. Justice Mazhar said as the two judges have dismissed the review petitions; therefore, their votes would be counted in the final order, though they say their votes should not be counted. He asked from Faisal to tell how to bring back those judges, and whether they would sit in the bench. Justice Hilali said if one of the judges has gone abroad, then include another two judges in the bench. She asked the counsel to give a ticket so she could bring one of the members from abroad. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar questioned; why no one has filed a review on 6th May order.' Faisal Siddiqui argued that the fundamental principle is that there has to be express recusal, which is not in the present case. He also cited the judgments in the case of Judges Pension, Panama and review petition against Article 63A verdict. He also referred to Order XXVI Rule VIII of Supreme Court Rules that the same bench which has delivered the judgment should hear the review petitions. He said that the author judge is also not included in the bench. Justice Mazhar then asked him whether the procedure provided in the SC Rules would be applicable after the 26th Amendment. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the Rules are applicable to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and whether the JCP was bound by the Rules to choose the members of the constitutional bench. Faisal Siddiqui said except for a few minor changes nothing has changed in the Supreme Court after the 26th Amendment. Upon that Justice Jamal questioned whether this bench is not unconstitutional. Faisal replied, 'it is not.' The hearing is adjourned until Wednesday (today). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC rules on high court chief justice's duties
Listen to article The Supreme Court has ruled that any inaction on part of a chief justice of the high court in response to a complaint of a judicial officer regarding the interference of executive agencies would be contrary to his constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution. "The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court: firstly, acted within his constitutional authority under Article 203 to supervise the proceedings of subordinate courts, including the Anti-Terrorism Courts; and secondly, in light of the dismissal of the reference against the Presiding Judge by the Administrative Judge due to insufficient grounds, the Chief Justice was also fully justified in not taking further action on the transfer application, which lacked merit and was based solely on a reference that lacked compelling evidence. "We are mindful of the fact that the Chief Justice of a High Court in a province is the paterfamilias of the judiciary within that province. Therefore, any inaction on his part in response to any such like complaint of a judicial officer would be contrary to his constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution," a four-page judgement authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi read while hearing a petition filed by Punjab Prosecution Department against the order of then chief justice Lahore High Court (LHC) on applications moved by the state seeking transfer of cases from one presiding judge of the anti-terrorism court (ATC) to another. The main thrust of the special prosecutor representing the state was that findings recorded in paras 8 and 9 of the orders were not only uncalled for but also beyond mandate of authority vested in the chief justice. It is to be noted that former LHC CJ Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had taken position against the executive agencies interference in ATC judges affairs. He even took strong exception to the Punjab government's request to transfer the ATC Rawalpindi judge. The Punjab government was reluctant to appoint those ATCs judges who were recommended by ex-LHC chief justice. He had referred complaint of ex-ATC judge Sargodha to the apex court which was hearing suo motu cases on six Islamabad High Court judges letter against the interference of agencies in their judicial functions. In the meanwhile, the government with the help of ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa was able to elevate Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan to the apex court. Four Supreme Court judges were not in favor of his elevation to the apex court as they believed the Punjab judiciary needed a strong administrative head. Unlike ex-LHC CJ, former Islamabad High Court chief justice was unable to take action on the complaints of judges regarding executive interference. A three-judge bench of the apex court led by CJP Afridi in its written order said it is essential to recognize the special supervisory authority vested in the chief justice of a high Court under Article 203 of the Constitution. "Essentially, Article 203 of the Constitution entrusts the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of a High Court, with the responsibility to supervise and regulate the proceedings of all subordinate courts within the province, including the Anti-Terrorism Courts. Applying this constitutional mandate to the present cases, it is our view that the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, in his administrative capacity, was not only empowered to address the issue at hand with his discretion, but also duty-bound to protect the Presiding Judges of the District Judiciary from any undue executive influence," the order said. The court noted that the reference brought by the state against the presiding judge of the ATC, alleging bias, was duly considered by the administrative judge. "After taking into consideration both the allegations and the response of the Presiding Judge, the Administrative Judge decided to file the reference, but ultimately dismissed it, indicating that there were insufficient grounds to proceed further. "Following this, the transfer application was filed, based solely on the fact that a reference had been made, despite no convincing evidence being presented to substantiate the allegations. This sequence reinforces the conclusion that the transfer request lacked sufficient merit to justify further action," the order said. "We have also been informed by the learned Special Prosecutor representing the State that Presiding Judges of the Anti-Terrorism Courts, whose bias had been questioned by the State, have since been transferred. "As such, there remains no live issue for immediate consideration. However, the State continues to be aggrieved particularly by the findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders, the costs imposed, and the referral of the matter for consideration of this Court in Suo Moto Case No. 1 of 2024, as recorded therein," the order read. "To our mind, the challenged action of the Chief Justice being essentially administrative in nature, and that too, relating to managing and supervising the subordinates under the constitutional mandate envisaged under Article 203 of the Constitution, ought not to be disturbed, lest the same are blatantly unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary, which are not apparent in the circumstances of the present cases," it added. The court also observed that the findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders, concerning the professional conduct of the judicial officers and state functionaries, appear to be somewhat personal in nature. "While, mindful of the gravity of the observations made, we are of the view that judicial propriety necessitates circumspection, particularly, when commenting on the conduct of executive and judicial functionaries and all the more without due inquiry. Hence, we deem it necessary to clarify that such remarks, whether favourable or adverse, must not be seen as having any binding effect in future proceedings. The praise directed towards judicial officers should not be construed as a shield that protects them from legitimate scrutiny, nor should the critical remarks regarding state functionaries, particularly the Prosecutor General, be treated as a sword to prejudice or undermine their future conduct. In essence, these observations are not to be regarded as determinative or conclusive in any subsequent forum and any future assessment of their conduct should be made independently, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the law," the order said.
Express Tribune
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Justice Shah in the eye of the storm amid deepening SC cracks
ISLAMABAD: As cracks deepen within the Supreme Court and the constitutional bench expresses visible discontent over the regular bench's initiation of contempt proceedings, legal experts believe Justice Syed Mansoor Ali is caught between internal strife and 'external malignant' forces. Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar opines that Justice Shah's presence on the bench has incited fear within certain quarters. "His nemesis is the illusion of the establishment. They are petrified that the senior puisne judge has an agenda," Khokhar said. Khokhar elaborated that certain forces believe Justice Shah aims to undo the 26th Amendment, nullify unrepresentative legislatures and ordain the rule of law, judicial independence, and parliamentary democracy. He further noted that it was also anticipated that Justice Shah may deliver justice to incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan and his embattled party, PTI. However, he noted that such fears were implausible for an institution under their control. He dismissed such notions, saying that Justice Shah is "neither a revolutionary nor does he seek martyrdom or confrontation with the establishment." Instead, he described him as "a learned, honourable, honest, conscientious and decent man of impeccable integrity" committed to delivering justice per his oath and the Constitution. "We have a national crisis, national tragedy or national farce based on delusions," Khokhar added. A flawed strategy? However, not all legal experts agree with Justice Shah's approach to addressing issues related to the 26th constitutional amendment. A senior lawyer, while choosing to remain anonymous, criticised Justice Shah's strategy, warning that it risked alienating fellow judges instead of fostering unity. "In my opinion, the strategy adopted by Justice Shah is flawed. It will offend and divide judges when they need to be united. There is also no reaction from the lawyers or public pressure. In such matters, a well-thought strategy is essential," he said. Meanwhile, some lawyers are critical of the constitutional bench for overturning judicial orders issued by the regular bench. The lawyers allege that efforts were underway to isolate Justice Shah within the SC, potentially forcing him to resign. It is noteworthy that Justice Shah's relationship with former CJP Qazi Faez Isa and his like-minded judges took a turn for the worse after the reserved seats case judgment. The ruling ultimately sealed the deal on Justice Shah not being appointed as the next CJP. The majority of ex-CJP Isa's like-minded judges now sit on the constitutional bench, further complicating matters. A number of judges also lent their support in pushing through the 26th Amendment, giving it a helping hand when it counted. Barrister Asad Rahim Khan states that despite the introduction of bizarre committees-within-committees by recent laws aimed at undermining judicial independence, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has issued an exceptionally well-reasoned order. This order correctly applies precedent, distinguishes between judges and administrators, and meticulously grounds itself in the law. "After an entire year of reading Qazi Faez Isa's legally incoherent decisions, an order of this quality feels like rain in the desert," he remarked. Khan further asserts that it has become evident to all that random administrative directives cannot bypass judicial declarations. While the case pertained solely to jurisdiction, it should be noted that the ongoing crisis will persist until the full bench resolves the fate of the 26th Amendment. The longer this remains undecided the more time the executive has to mass-appoint judges to the superior courtsa trend that must not influence the amendment case.
