Latest news with #AminuddinKhan
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Reserved seats
Listen to article The much-awaited decision on reserved seats has cleared the air and now PTI is neither a parliamentary party nor is it eligible for the seats reserved for women and minorities in national and provincial assemblies. The judgment delivered on Friday by the Constitutional Bench under Justice Aminuddin Khan has set aside the July 12, 2024, eight-member majority decision of the Supreme Court, which had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats. In fact, the Constitutional bench has restored the Peshawar High Court's original order that had outright dismissed the PTI's plea for reserved seats after it had changed its nomenclature to Sunni Ittehad Council on the floor of the house. Since the Sunni Ittehad had not taken part in the February 2024 general elections, the PTI taking refuge under its banner was infructuous, and goes on to endorse the claim held by the Election Commission. This was fait accompli for PTI, as its logic and argument on the reserved seats was found untenable, in the review petition, even by the honourable judges who had earlier voiced for it. The strength of the decision can be gauged from the fact that seven judges put their weight behind review pleas filed by ECP, PML-N and others, while three judges 'partially allowed' them'. The proceedings, likewise, saw a fair lawsuit as dissenting notes too were entertained as those of Justices Ayesha A Malik and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, and the last to the recuse was Justice Salahuddin Panhwar. The 12-judge judgment now makes it obvious that those who had earlier joined the Sunni Ittehad could face the defection clause under Article 63A of the Constitution, if they chose to rejoin PTI after this judgment. In principle, the PTI has had a fair hearing and now as per law, the reserved seats under Article 51 and Article 106 and the Elections Act will go to the coalition because the 77 seats cannot be kept vacant. With nine judges having corrected the error in the review petitions, it's time to walk straight and let the Constitution have its way.
Business Recorder
7 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC reduces duration of LLB programme to three years
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court reduced the duration of LLB programme from five to four years. A five-judge constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the petition of Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) regarding legal education reforms. The court accepted the application of PBC to suspend the Special Equivalence Examination (SEE-LAW) for law graduates of foreign universities, whose applications are pending for enrolment, as the same was discriminatory and added an extra burden on foreign law degree holders as they already have appeared for LAW-GAT. The court also approved the request of the PBC, Directorate of Legal Education (DLE) and Higher Education Commission, to reduce the duration of LLB programme from five to four years in line with all other undergraduate degrees. Legal Education Committee of PBC in 2016 had amended 'Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 2015'. Under the Rules the Universities imparting Legal Education, are required to give admissions for academic year 2016-17 and thereafter, on the basis 5 years LLB programme, instead of 3 years LLB programme which after promulgation of the 'Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 2015' in December, 2015, stands abolished. The committee called upon all the universities imparting legal education to ensure that admission to LLB classes for the academic year 2016-17, must be made on the basis of 5 years LLB programme, as required under the Rules and in case of failure on the part of any University to do so, will render the University concerned to an action which may extend even to its de-recognition. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'SC must overturn unconstitutional order'
Justice Aminuddin Khan has observed that the apex court is bound by the Constitution and it can revoke any unconstitutional verdict. Justice Khan made this remark on Thursday while leading a 11-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that is hearing review petitions filed against the SC's July, 2024 verdict in the reserved seats case. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court through a majority of 8 to 5 resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination papers' submission could do that now within a period of 15 days. The government had later filed review petitions against the verdict. During the hearing on Thursday, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned whether the Constitution mandated that reserved seats must not remain vacant. The counsel for a petitioner Salman Akram Raja responded that the court had already declared that these seats cannot be left unfilled. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked which fundamental rights had been violated by not allocating reserved seats to the PTI, while Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan queried whether the court could fill a political vacuum on its own initiative. The court will resume hearing of the case today.
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.
Express Tribune
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
JCP to review tenure of constitutional benches
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 Muhammad Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Extension of constitutional benches has been proposed for the second time. The federal government on December 21 managed to get its way at the JCP which had rejected a suggestion to nominate all Supreme Court judges to its Constitutional Bench (CB) by a majority vote of 7 to 6. Except Justice Aminuddin, all JCP's judicial members namely CJP Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had voted for all the Supreme Court judges to be part of the CB. Two PTI members Barrister Gahar Ali Khan and Barrister Ali Zafar supported their view. However, the government as well as the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representatives in JCP did not support their suggestion. The judicial members had faced embarrassment, when their own fellow judge, Justice Aminuddin Khan, did not support their suggestion. The JCP by majority 7 to 6 endorsed the extension of the CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan for six months. Once again it is being expected that the government will be successful to get majority votes for the extension of present CB, which performance is under question. There is no objective criteria for the selection of judges for CB. 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.
