Lawyer tells SC there is disconnect between SC Rules and SC Act
An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to Supreme Court's order removed, said till the time new rules are framed the judges have to follow the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. However, he told the bench that there is disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution.
It would be considered that the review petitions are being heard by a 13-member bench, though on the first day of hearing after preliminary arguments the two judges had dismissed the petitions and opted not to sit in the bench, adding the Court order was signed by all the 13 judges.
He contended that on May 6 when the case was heard no objection was raised by any lawyer on the constitution of the bench. All the 13 members of the bench heard the case, and 11 judges issued notices to the respondents, while two judges declined.
Makhdoom said the review petitions have been filed against the majority (eight judges) judgment, but the Court order was signed by all the 13 members. He said suppose tomorrow five more judges take a stance that the petitions are non-maintainable then votes of two judges will be counted and included with five judges' decision, and the Court order would by 7 to 6, but will be signed by all the 13 judges.
Justice Mazhar said it was argued by the respondent's counsel that though the two judges have dismissed the review petitions, they should not be excluded from the bench. Makhdoom said if the request of the other side is accepted it will be contrary to the law laid down in the judgments of Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Panama cases.
He said the two judges have decided the merit of the case; therefore, now what they will say as already explicitly have expressed their opinion, adding there is no provision of second review. 'My task is to persuade the remaining judges and not two who have recused themselves,' he said.
Justice Amin again said that they have not excluded them, but as per their wish the bench was reconstituted.
Earlier, Hamid Khan, representing Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued on live-streaming of the proceeding of review petitions, saying the original case was live-telecast on all TV channels, and the entire nation benefited from it.
Justice Mazhar stated that the proceedings were shown live as a pilot project, as at that time Full Court in administrative side had given its approval. He said after the 26th Amendment condition has been imposed in Article 191A for framing of rules, adding unless the draft rules are approved by the Full Court, this cannot happen.
Hamid Khan then argued that till the decision on petitions against 26th Amendment, the reserved seats should be adjourned. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Broken justice system fuels corruption and elitism: SC
Listen to article The Supreme Court has ruled that a weak and compromised criminal justice system undermines the rule of law and thus encourages corruption, authoritarianism and the rule of the powerful and privileged. "An effective and responsive criminal justice system, free from political interference and corruption, is a fundamental right of every citizen while inexpensive and expeditious justice is a commitment of the State under the Constitution. The criminal justice system will only serve its purpose when the actual stakeholders, the people of this country, will have trust and confidence in a system which is free, accessible, impartial, responsive, independent and free from corruption or any other influence. "It is, therefore, a constitutional duty of every organ of the State, the executive, judiciary and the legislature to take urgent steps so as to ensure that the criminal justice system serves the people of this country and they repose their trust and confidence in its fairness, impartiality and independence", reads a 20-page judgement authored by Justice Athar Minallah, which commuted the death sentence of an inmate imprisoned for the past 25 years into life imprisonment. A three-member bench of the apex court led by Justice Minallah heard the criminal appeal in a murder case. The judgement notes that the appellant has remained incarcerated for more than 25 years. "The appellant had escaped from judicial custody and that obviously constitutes a separate offence and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation lest it may prejudice the case of the parties in any matter that may be pending before a competent court/forum." The appellant was young in 1991 when the occurrence had taken place. He was accompanying his father and the motive was attributed to him and not the appellant. It cannot be ruled out that the appellant may have acted under the influence of his elders, particularly his father. He did not have any criminal record prior to the occurrence and, therefore, he was a first time offender. The court further noted the recovery of the fire arm weapon is not free from doubt and the evidence brought on record in this regard is not safe to be relied upon. In addition to these recognized mitigating factors, the appellant has served the full term prescribed for the alternate punishment of imprisonment for life without the benefit of remissions. "We are, therefore, of the opinion that on account of these mitigating and extenuating circumstances, the sentence of death on five counts was not justified. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal only to the extent of modifying the sentence of death on five counts to imprisonment for life on five counts. The sentences, except those required to be served in default of payment of compensation, shall run concurrently. The benefit under section 382b of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is extended in favour of the appellant," says the judgement. The court lamented on the abysmal condition of the criminal justice system in general and the unjustified delays in the ultimate disposal of cases in which the appellant or petitioner has challenged the sentence of death. In the case before the court, the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court on September 3, 2008. The appeal was preferred within time. "The High Court decided the appeal on September 18, 2014, and the reference was answered in the affirmative and, thus, the sentence of death was confirmed. There is six years delay in deciding the appeal of a prisoner who has been handed down the sentence of death which cannot be justified." The necessary time for taking up the appeal and its ultimate disposal should not have been more than 12 months, stated the apex court. "The appellant had then sought leave by filing a petition before this Court and the necessary and reasonable time required for its final disposal should not have been more than twelve months." The petition, which was filed in 2014, was for the first time fixed for hearing after seven years i.e on March 22, 2021, and finally on January 29, 2025. It took more than 17 years for the appeal process to complete from the date when the death sentence was handed down. "The condemned prisoner was in a death cell and he was not responsible in any manner for this inordinate delay nor were the procedures in his control." The delay had definitely exceeded the necessary and reasonable time required for the appellate procedures to be completed. This inordinate delay brings the criminal justice system into disrepute and undermines the confidence of the people in the courts and the criminal justice system. The abysmal conditions in most of the overcrowded prisons across the country and the inhumane and degrading conditions often reported not only adds to the unimaginable agony and hardship of a condemned prisoner but becomes a form of unauthorized punishment not intended by the legislature. The court also noted that the judiciary is no doubt responsible when the process of appeal exceeds the necessary and reasonable time required for its completion, but the other branches of the State, the executive and legislature, are also equally responsible for ensuring that the conditions in the prisons are humane and that the treatment of prisoners is not cruel, inhuman and degrading. "It is an onerous task of the High Courts and this Court to ensure that the appeal process and remedies provided under the law are completed within the time which is necessary and reasonable for this purpose." The executive branch is equally responsible to ensure that treatment of the inmates of a prison is not cruel, degrading and inhumane. "The legislature is also expected to review the legislation with the object of making the criminal justice system responsive to the needs of the citizens and accountable for violations of their rights." The unauthorized punishment which an inmate of a prison is forced to endure on account of a compromised, weak and failing justice system cannot be legalized nor condoned. We have noted with concern that most of the victims of the inordinate delays in completion of the appellate process are those who are financially so weak that they cannot even afford to engage a lawyer of their choice. "It appears that the criminal justice system, from the stage of investigation to the fixation of appeals, is vulnerable to be exploited by the privileged and powerful while the victims are those who belong to politically, economically and socially marginalized and underprivileged classes." Every branch of the State having a role in the running of the criminal justice system is under an obligation to take urgent steps to remedy the wrongs. A system which fails in protecting and enforcing the rights alienates the actual stakeholders; the people of this country."
Business Recorder
17 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Seniority of IHC judges: Justice Mansoor expresses reservation over presidential notification
ISLAMABAD: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah expressed his reservation over a presidential notification determining seniority of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges, without consulting the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of the High Courts. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vide its short order on June 19 asked the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority and nature of transfer of the transferee judges, and held that transfer of judges under Article 200 is within the framework of the Constitution, and transfer (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment. President Asif Ali Zardari through notification dated June 27 issued declared Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as the senior-most judge of the IHC. He also notified that the transfer of Justice Dogar, Justice Soomro and Justice Asif to the IHC was made on a permanent basis. JCP nominates new CJs for high courts On the basis of the notification, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) by majority nominated Justice Sarfraz Dogar as the chief justice of the IHC. Justice Mansoor, in his letter, which he wrote to the JCP secretary, a day before the Commission's meeting, raised serious constitutional concerns regarding the President determining the seniority of the IHC judges. In the letter, the senior puisne judge, who is now abroad, noted: 'With due deference, it appears that this action was taken without the constitutionally mandated consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the two respective Chief Justices of the High Courts under Article 200 of the Constitution.' He stated in his view, the requirement of consultation was a binding constitutional mandate and was not a matter of executive discretion that could be conveniently sidelined. The unilateral determination made without such consultation may lack legal validity, he pointed out. He added that while the Supreme Court had directed the president to decide on the seniority of transferred judges, such compliance must still operate within constitutional boundaries. Justice Mansoor further wrote; 'The presidential action in question appears to have been taken in undue haste, which raises concerns about the transparency and propriety of the process concerns that may merit constitutional scrutiny.' The most senior judge, further pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution contemplates the temporary transfer of judges, not permanent relocation. 'Treating such a transfer as permanent — and accordingly fixing seniority on that basis — could raise serious constitutional questions, particularly where the foundational procedural safeguards appear to have been bypassed.' Calling for institutional caution, Justice Mansoor stressed that the matters raised in his letter warranted careful reflection before any further steps were taken. 'I wish to emphasise that these are preliminary concerns, and I remain fully respectful of the judicial process and the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court to conclusively settle these matters,' he stated. The letter also mentioned that the JCP was urged to delay its decision regarding the appointment of the IHC chief justice until the Supreme Court resolves the underlying constitutional issues. 'Proceeding further at this stage may risk unsettling foundational constitutional principles, including the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial independence,' he warned. Justice Mansoor also requested that his letter be officially presented before the commission and its contents recorded in the meeting's minutes. He clarified that the presidential notification dated June 27, 2025, necessitated the letter, adding: 'All observations made in the letter are tentative, offered without prejudice, and subject to the final determination by the Supreme Court on the relevant constitutional issues currently under consideration.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PHC grills officials over Swat tragedy
Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Justice SM Atiq Shah, expressed strong displeasure over the tragic drowning of 14 tourists in the Swat River and the failure to rescue them in time. During the hearing, he summoned commissioners of Malakand, Hazara, Kohat, Bannu, and DI Khan divisions, along with the regional police officers of the concerned districts, to appear in court today. The two-member bench, comprising Chief Justice Shah and Justice Faheem Wali, heard the case. Petitioner's counsel, Advocate Mohammad Nasir Khan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa's Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel were present in court. The petitioner informed the bench that a catastrophic incident occurred in Swat due to a sudden river swell, resulting in 14 fatalities. He said that unchecked encroachments along the Swat River, especially by hotel owners who construct structures dangerously close to the water, are a major contributing factor to such accidents. "The government remains a silent spectator," he added, alleging that influential figures also own large hotels illegally built along the riverbanks. Justice Shah remarked that the tragedy was a result of administrative negligence and questioned why no preventive measures were taken to ensure the safety of tourists. "Why were rescue operations delayed? Why were safety jackets not delivered by drone? Who is responsible for monitoring river safety?" he asked. The Advocate General responded that an anti-encroachment operation was underway in Swat, and while an air ambulance was available, it could not be deployed in time. However, Justice Shah pressed further, asking whether the government's prior warnings were enforced effectively. The Advocate General conceded he could not confirm implementation details but noted that several officials had been suspended. He also informed the court that a related case is pending before the Supreme Court, which has ordered the government to take necessary action. The bench directed the appearance of commissioners and regional police officers from the five divisions and ordered the provincial government to submit a detailed report on the Swat incident. Filling station case repatriated Meanwhile, PHC has returned a case involving the freezing of a Kohistan-based filling station owner's bank account by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the Accountability Court for reconsideration. The court directed the lower court to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and merit. A division bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Fazal Subhan heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel, Advocate Muhammad Farooq Malik, informed the court that his client, Muhammad Saleem, owns a filling station located on the busy Karakoram Highway in Komela, Kohistan, operating on a lease agreement. He explained that the station serves both tourist and heavy vehicles.
