Latest news with #26thAmendment
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Bandial had sought increase in number of SC judges: CB
ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench Thursday revealed that in fact former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had asked for increasing the number of judges in the Supreme Court. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel divulged that while responding to the arguments of Hamid Khan that more judges were inducted in the Supreme Court (SC) so they be included in the constitutional bench for hearing of review petitions against the SC's judgment on reserved seats. Hamid Khan, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contended that was the reason the judges, who passed the majority judgment, including the author judge, were excluded from the bench. He also complained of not fixing review petitions against the majority judgment, which was delivered on July 12, 2024, before the enactment of 26th Constitutional Amendment. 8-member bench to hear pleas against SC bill Justice Mandokhel said; 'According to my information, request for increasing judges in Supreme Court was from former chief justice Umar Ata Bandial.' Justice Amin, explaining reason for delay in fixation of review petition, said because of two members of the Committee, set up under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, the reviews were delayed. Justice Amin further said after the 12th July judgment, when review petitions were filed then former Chief Justice (Qazi Faez) called a Committee's meeting to decide about hearing of review petitions. However, two members [Justice Mansoor and Justice Munib] at that time said were on summer vacations. Hamid Khan then contended that the review petition should have been heard after a decision on 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mandokhel responded that review petition was filed prior to petitions against the 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, 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. At the onset of the proceeding, Justice Mandokhail inquired from PTI lawyer; 'Don't you think 3-day, time-line given in Article 51 of the constitution, has been extended in 8-judge's verdict.' Salman Akram Raja, appearing on behalf of PTI, replied, 'no'. He submitted that the judgment actually allowed the independents to join a political party to that they belonged. He told that the judgment derived power from Section 66 of the Election Act, which states how a candidate becomes a member of a political party. Raja also contended that after 24th December 2023, the ECP refused to recognise PTI as a political party, and declined to issue list of PTI reserved seats for women. Justice Mandokhel reminded Raja that in the main case, he had accepted the status of PTI candidates as independents, and admitted that he would not have any objection if the reserved seats were given to the SIC. Raja recalled that during the proceeding of the main case, Justice Athar Minallah raised issue of complete justice and asked won't he has objection if reserved seats were given to the PTI. The counsel said that he had bowed to that offer, adding the 8-judge judgment declared that joining of SIC by independents is nonest. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that there is nothing on record that 41 candidates, out of 80, filed party affiliation certificate or mentioned PTI in their nomination papers. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar remarked that if 39 independents could mention in their nomination papers PTI, then why 41 candidates did not write PTI. He questioned whether they had the fear that if they would do that than their papers would be rejected. Justice Mandokhel observed had the 41 candidates also mentioned PTI in their nomination paper then maximum damage they could face was the rejection of the papers. Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar questioned whether Section 94 is still part of Elections Act? Raja replied that he went to the Lahore High Court (LHC) against this provision, but the High Court dismissed it without passing any order, and remanded the matter to the ECP. Raja informed that he had challenged that order before the apex court, but the registrar's office returned his petition on 2nd February 2024. He told that the majority judgment declared the Explanation in Section 94 ultra vires of the constitution. Justice Mazhar inquired whether Section 94 was declared ultra vires in the short order or the judgment. Raja responded that in paras 4 and 5 of the majority judgment it was clarified why Section 94 was declared ultra vires. However, Justice Mazhar noted that there is no such declaration in the short order. He said once a thing is not considered in the short order then how come finding on it could be given in the detailed reasoning, adding this is a legal question, as it will come before the Court in future. The case was adjourned until Friday (June 27). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Justice Shah warns against extending CB tenure
Senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has cautioned that the extension of the Constitutional Bench (CB) without resolving the core legal challenge surrounding it could further undermine the top court's legitimacy and deepen the ongoing institutional crisis. "The Commission must wait till the constitutionality of the 26th Constitutional Amendment is decided by this Court before addressing matters that flow directly from it. Proceeding with extensions or re-appointments to a Constitutional Bench whose very legal foundation is under serious constitutional challenge further deepens the institutional crisis and weakens the Court's legitimacy," Justice Shah wrote in a two-page letter addressed to the Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). A copy of the letter was also shared with all JCP members. However, the commission, by majority vote, disregarded Justice Shah's concerns and extended the tenure of the Constitutional Bench until November 30. Justice Shah noted that his office had verbally informed the Secretary JCP on June 12 that he would not be available in Pakistan to attend the meeting scheduled for June 19. "One would have reasonably expected that due to non-availability of one of its Members, the meeting would be deferred — particularly in keeping with past practice, where meetings have been deferred due to the unavailability of Members representing the Executive. Additionally, the meeting falls in the summer vacations announced by the Court. However, it appears that the meeting is continuing as scheduled — perhaps due to the judiciary's minority position in the Commission," the letter read. Justice Shah also requested that his written submissions be included in the official minutes of the JCP meeting, as he would be unable to attend, even virtually. He stressed that the commission must recognise how the ongoing delay in resolving the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment is eroding the Court's credibility and shaking public confidence in its impartiality. "It is both surprising and regrettable that rather than first addressing the legitimacy of the 26th Amendment, the Commission is rather insensitively prioritising the matter of judicial extensions — an act which, in substance, continues the disputed scheme introduced by that very amendment," the letter states. Justice Shah also warned against the growing influence of the Executive over the Commission. "It is imperative that the Court's image is not allowed to drift under the control or convenience of the Executive, which now appears to wield disproportionate influence over the affairs of the JCP." Pending adjudication of constitutional challenges, he proposed that all judges of the Supreme Court be nominated to the Constitutional Bench on an interim basis. "Any selective inclusion without a transparent process or identifiable criteria is patently discriminatory and damaging to institutional harmony." Justice Shah stressed the urgent need to develop formal criteria for the selection of judges to the Constitutional Bench before any further constitution or expansion takes place. "The absence of objective standards renders past nominations vulnerable to the charge of cherry-picking. This ad-hocism has already cast a long shadow on the legitimacy of the Constitutional Bench, and continued exclusion of senior judges without reason only worsens that perception." Addressing another item on the JCP meeting's agendarelated to the framing of rules under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution — Justice Shah asserted that no policy decision should be made until the 26th Amendment's constitutionality is settled, as it is currently being challenged in a series of petitions. In closing, he urged that his concerns be taken seriously. "The strength of the judiciary rests on its credibility, its internal coherence, and its fidelity to constitutional principle — not on expediency or executive preference. If the Commission is to retain its institutional legitimacy, it must lead with integrity, transparency, and collective wisdom."
Business Recorder
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Al-Qadir Trust case: Aleema slams delay in hearing appeals of IK, spouse
RAWALPINDI: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan's sister Aleema Khan on Friday criticised the delay in hearing the appeals of Khan and his wife in the Al-Qadir Trust case, claiming that if the Islamabad High Court (IHC) takes up the matter, bail would be granted within minutes. Speaking to reporters outside an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) after attending proceedings in the November 26 protest case, Aleema alleged that the Al-Qadir Trust case is being deliberately kept off the court's roster. 'Our lawyer Salman Safdar says this is a three-minute case,' she said, insisting that both Khan and his wife would be granted bail as soon as the case is heard. Aleema went on to allege that the case is so weak that, if legal arguments are presented, criminal proceedings could potentially be initiated against Judge Nasir Javed Rana - the judge who had sentenced Khan to 14 years in prison and his wife Bushra Bibi to seven years in the £190 million National Crime Agency (NCA) scam, commonly known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. She also voiced dissatisfaction with the Islamabad Bar Association (IBA) president, saying that lawyers have expressed no confidence in IBA president, Wajid Gilani. Criticising what she called political double standards, she said, 'You ask for votes by making promises, and then go on to support the 26th Constitutional Amendment.' Aleema appealed to lawyers across the country to stand up for the rule of law, saying, 'We consider you our leaders when it comes to defending justice', adding that 'today, I am telling the legal community that the law is being buried.' Khan's sister urged the legal community once again to take a stand, especially in the wake of the 26th Amendment, warning that the 27th is coming. 'If anything remains in burying the constitution and the rule of law that will be completed with another amendment,' she cautioned. Earlier, she, along with PTI leaders, appeared before ATC judge Amjad Ali Shah in cases registered in connection with the November 26 protest. Khan's sister and PTI's Punjab chief organiser Aliya Hamza appeared before the court along with their lawyers. Aliya Hamza appeared before the court in four cases registered against her in connection with PTI's November 26 protest. The court extended Aliya Hamza's interim bail until June 27, while the interim bail of Aleema Khan was extended till June 26 in a case registered against her at Sadiqabad police station. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHCBA to hold jurists confab on 26th Amendment
The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has announced to organise a jurists conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Constitutional Amendment and invited the Insaf Lawyers Forum to suggest names of its two jurists for the conference. IHCBA President Wajid Ali Gilani wrote a letter to Ali Bukhari of the Insaf Lawyers Forum — which is linked to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — in response to his critical letter. Gilani said that the 26th Amendment was passed by parliament and the lawyers would uphold the Constitution. "Lawyers are not legislators, our mandate is to defend the constitutional structure not to hold protest marches against legislation," Gilani said. Two parliamentarians from your party, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Senator Ali Zafar, were present during its [26th Amendment] passage." He further said that IHCBA would convene a Jurist Conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Amendment, adding that eminent jurists from all political parties would be invited. "You should nominate two jurists from your party to participate in the Jurist Conference."
Express Tribune
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
JCP to review tenure of CB
A crucial meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will be held on June 19 in the Supreme Court building. The meeting will discuss extending the tenure of constitutional benches. The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches. At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Performance of CB The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment. The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution. Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB. A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous. "It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance. "Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer. He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. "Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times." He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment," he adds.
