logo
CB mulls SC powers for 'complete justice'

CB mulls SC powers for 'complete justice'

Express Tribune20-06-2025
Some members of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court raised a number of questions with regard to the SC's powers to ensure "complete justice". They also asked how non allocations of reserved seats to the PTI could be called a violation of fundamental rights.
PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab's counsel Salman Akram Raja on Friday resumed his arguments in support of the SC's July 12 majority order in the reserved seats case before the 11-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan that is hearing review petitions against the verdict.
Raja, in his arguments, stated that it is the responsibility of this court to protect fundamental rights and this responsibility is assigned to it by the Constitution.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how Article 187 applies in this case.
Article 187(1) gives the Supreme Court the power to issue any order or direction necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it while Article 187(2) gives it the powers as a civil court to enforce its decisions, including issuing orders to any person or authority.
Raja replied that he would explain this in detail later. He said the Supreme Court has broader authority and can use Article 187 together with Article 184 to deliver complete justice.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether Article 184(3) is used in public interest cases.
Salman Akram Raja responded in the affirmative. He said the SC can use Article 184(3) for public interest and fundamental rights. "When there is destruction or crisis, one does not ask which article applies—then the Supreme Court must step forward and do what is necessary."
Justice Mandokhail asked whether, if a constitutional violation occurs but no specific article applies, the SC should still take action. The lawyer said in such a situation, the SC should do whatever is necessary.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Article 199 cannot be read together with Article 187. He remarked that under Article 199, the high court has powers that even the Supreme Court does not possess.
Article 199 of the Constitution outlines the writ jurisdiction of the high courts. It empowers high courts to issue various writs (orders) to enforce fundamental rights and ensure lawful conduct by authorities.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked what, in his view, are the limits of the Supreme Court's powers. Justice Jamal Mandokhail said, "My brother judge suggests that there must be some limit to the powers. Does the Supreme Court have unlimited powers in every case?"
He then asked whether any constitutional or legal violation occurred in the majority decision of the reserved seats case. Salman Akram Raja said, "There was no overreach in the Supreme Court's decision."
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the Constitution itself gives parties the right to join within three days. Justice Aminuddin Khan interjected.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Regressive jirgas
Regressive jirgas

Express Tribune

time2 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Regressive jirgas

Listen to article The federal government's recent move to revive the jirga system in the newly merged districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is not just regressive, but also unconstitutional and dangerously reminiscent of the colonial-era governance. A committee led by the Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan has been formed to explore alternative justice systems in these districts, raising fears of a de facto rollback of the 25th Constitutional Amendment, which integrated the former tribal areas into Pakistan's legal and administrative mainstream and abolished the jirga system — a move celebrated as a step towards constitutional equality, rule of law, and human rights for the region's long-neglected population. Nonetheless, the initiative to reinstate this system signals not only a betrayal of the promises made to the tribal population but also a troubling attempt to offload state responsibility for justice onto a parallel, informal, and often brutal institution. Undoubtedly, jirgas operate entirely outside the constitutional framework and the rule of law. They violate the principle of separation of powers, usurp judicial authority, and often lead to egregious human rights violations. Most disturbingly, jirgas are structurally biased against women. The recent tragic case of a 19-year-old bride murdered in Pirwadhai, Rawalpindi, allegedly on the orders of a jirga, and the killing of a couple in Balochistan on the pretext of an illicit relationship are only the latest examples in a long list of so-called "honour" killings facilitated by these illegal forums. Such incidents are a stark reminder that when justice is privatised, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. The Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 makes it abundantly clear that only the state has the authority to administer justice, and such illicit practices of informally adjudicating on civil and criminal matters are violative of Articles 4, 8, 10-A, 25 and 175(3) of the Constitution. In 2004, the Sindh High Court declared jirgas unconstitutional and illegal, a position reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2006 and again in 2017. The top court also noted that the jirga and panchayat systems violate Pakistan's international legal obligations, including commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Yet, the persistence and now potential formal revival of these forums illustrate the state's failure to assert its monopoly on justice and its hesitance to challenge entrenched tribal and feudal power structures. Supporters of jirgas argue they provide swift and culturally resonant dispute resolution. But this is a false economy. The real reason people turn to jirgas is not their efficiency or fairness, but because the formal justice system remains slow, expensive and inaccessible, particularly in rural and tribal areas. Instead of reinstating medieval mechanisms, the state should commit to making the judiciary accessible, the police accountable, and the legal system responsive to citizens' needs. Worse still, this regressive proposal comes at a time when the federal government has failed to meet its financial and developmental promises to the merged districts. The commitment to provide Rs100 billion annually in development funds, along with a 3% share in the NFC award, remains unfulfilled. The resurgence of militancy, ongoing political tussles between the Centre and K-P, and administrative chaos in the merged districts have only compounded public disillusionment. The state's failure to deliver tangible benefits post-merger has created a vacuum, one it now dangerously proposes to fill with a broken, discredited system. Let us be clear: reinstating jirgas is not a neutral administrative measure; it is a reversal of constitutional progress and a betrayal of the people of the tribal districts. It reinforces outdated power hierarchies, legitimises violence against women, and undermines national unity. The path forward lies not in restoring colonial relics but in upholding the Constitution, investing in institutional reform, and ensuring equal protection of the law for every citizen. Pakistan must decisively reject the politics of appeasement cloaked in cultural nostalgia. It is time to bury jirgas for good.

Indian Supreme Court to hear plea on restoration of IIOJK's special status
Indian Supreme Court to hear plea on restoration of IIOJK's special status

Express Tribune

time3 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Indian Supreme Court to hear plea on restoration of IIOJK's special status

A woman stands next to Amir Nazir Wani's family house, which was destroyed by the Indian authorities, in Khasipora village in Tral, occupied Kashmir on April 27, 2025. — Reuters/Adnan Abidi Listen to article India's top court will hear a plea for the restoration of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir's (IIOJK) federal statehood later this week, court officials said Tuesday, as the region marked six years under direct rule from New Delhi. The hearing, scheduled for August 8 in the Supreme Court, follows an application filed by two residents of the Muslim-majority territory. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government in August 2019 revoked IIOJK limited autonomy and brought it directly under federal control. The move was accompanied by mass arrests and a communications blackout that ran for months as India bolstered its armed forces in the region to contain protests. The removal of Article 370 of the constitution, which enshrined the Indian-occupied region's special status, was challenged by IIOJK's pro-India political parties, the local bar association and individual litigants. The Supreme Court in December 2023 upheld removing the region's autonomy but called for IIOJK to be restored to statehood and put on a par with any other Indian federal state "at the earliest and as soon as possible". "We have moved an application seeking a definitive timeline for the restoration of statehood," said the petitioners' lawyer, Soayib Qureshi. "It has been quite some time since the court asked for it and elections have also been successfully held." Last November, IIOJK elected its first government since it was brought under New Delhi's direct control, as voters backed opposition parties to lead its regional assembly. But the local government has limited powers and the territory continues to be for all practical purposes governed by a New Delhi-appointed administrator. Indian security forces were deployed in force in the Himalayan territory on Tuesday, eyeing protests demanding the restoration of its special status.

Opposition slams govt for Kashmir-like treatment at home
Opposition slams govt for Kashmir-like treatment at home

Express Tribune

time8 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Opposition slams govt for Kashmir-like treatment at home

Listen to article The Opposition in the Punjab Assembly lambasted the government for its double standards, stating that, on one hand, it expresses solidarity with Kashmiris against their mistreatment and cruelty, but on the other hand, it subjects the Opposition to similar treatment. Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, condemned the act of setting fire to houses, banks, and state properties under the guise of a protest or rally. Speaking to journalists, he said, 'Peaceful protest is everyone's right, but turning such an event into chaos and violence cannot be allowed under any circumstances.' He added that August 5 is the day of 'Youm-e-Istehsal' (Day of Exploitation), and everyone should stand by the Kashmiris. However, PTI created division by announcing protests on August 14, a national day. 'Today, the focus should have been on voicing against the cruelty towards the people of Palestine and Kashmir, rather than damaging the national cause under the guise of protests,' Speaker Khan warned. He further stated that turning protests into anarchy is unjustifiable. On the other hand, the Opposition's parliamentary leader, Ali Imtiaz Warraich, condemned the government's dual conduct, adding that, on one side, the government observes August 5 as a day to voice against the exploitation of Kashmiris and Palestinians, but on the other hand, it treats the Opposition with the same cruelty. He mentioned that PTI had called for a nationwide protest on August 5. In response to this call, PTI lawmakers assembled outside DHA Rehbar, but the police arrested nine of their lawmakers. 'PTI conducted a peaceful protest, yet even its lawmakers and workers were arrested,' he said. Warraich warned that PTI would devise a future strategy if its lawmakers and workers were not released.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store