Latest news with #ConstitutionalBench
Express Tribune
a day 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
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC declares PTI ineligible for reserved seats
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court with the majority of seven set aside the impugned judgment dated 12th July 2024, on the reserved seats of women and non-Muslims. The 10-member bench on Friday after hearing the arguments of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel, Attorney General for Pakistan, and the lawyer of women parliamentarians, elected on the tickets of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) on reserved seats, passed a short order, the detailed reasoning would be announced later. Initially, a 13-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, was constituted for the hearing of review petitions. On the first hearing, held on May 6, 2025, 11 judges of 13-member bench accepting the review petitions issued notices to the respondents. However, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi rejected the petitions, and wrote separate note, while Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, at the verge of conclusion recused from the bench for certain reasons. According to the short order, majority of seven judges – Justice Amin, Justice Musarrat, Justice Naeem, Justice Shahid, Justice Hashim, Justice Aamer and Justice Baqar Najafi – allowed all Civil Review Petitions, and set aside the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024, as a consequence thereof, Civil Appeal Nos 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored. The order further stated that Justice Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats, but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of 41 seats. Whereas Justice Muhammad and Justice Azhar also reviewed the judgment and allowed the review petitions with the rider that since the factual controversy or disputed questions of facts neither could be resolved by the Peshawar High Court nor this Court in original or review jurisdiction; therefore, directions are issued to the ECP to examine and consider the nomination papers/ declaration and other relevant documents of all 80 returned candidates by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats within 15 days from receiving the copy of this Short Order. A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24, delivered five separate short orders. Eight judges – Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan declared that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, and to 41 independents granted 15 days' time to decide on joining the PTI. Former Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Mandokhel in their order also accepted 39 candidates of the PTI, but considered 41 as independents. Justice Yahya Afridi though recognized PTI as political party, had directed the ECP to decide the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to political parties in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies. On the other hand, Justice Amin, and Justice Naeem had rejected the SIC appeal against the PHC verdict. Onset of the proceedings, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar addressing Hamid Khan, lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council, said that he had good relation with him. 'However, you raised objections on the bench yesterday (Thursday).' He then read his written statement, which stated; 'In the entire proceeding of this case all the counsels including Faial Siddiqui, Salman Akram Raja unequivocally expressed confidence in the bench. However, yesterday Hamid Khan during the course of his arguments raised objections on the bench, especially targeting the inclusion of the judges, including me, who were appointed judges of the apex court subsequent to the 26th Amendment, questioned the propriety of our participation in the adjudication of this case.' He stated: 'Dignity and impartiality of the Court remained unchallenged throughout these proceedings, and there was broad consensus among all the parties, thus reflected faith in the bench. Judicial propriety and the appearance of impartiality remain paramount in maintaining the public confidence in the judiciary. 'In light of the objection raised and in deference to the principle of judicial propriety, irrespective of its merit, and the timing of the assertion I consider it appropriate to rescue myself from the hearing of this case. The recusal is made not from the admission or disqualification, but to uphold the dignity of the institution and integrity and objectivity of these proceedings, I thereby recused myself from the bench.' When Justice Salahuddin Panhwar finished his statement, Hamid Khan said: 'Greatly appreciated.' However, Justice Amin responded; 'This is not the matter of appreciation', adding: 'this is because of your conduct.' While addressing Hamid Khan, the judge further said that you are the third counsel of the same party, whom we gave an opportunity to argue in this case. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said; 'In a case two counsels from the same party are never allowed, but we respected you as a senior counsel; therefore, provided you opportunity to argue the case; otherwise you were not entitled,' adding; 'You have misused it.' After the recusal of Justice Salahuddin the members of the bench left the courtroom, and approximately 30 minutes later the 10-judge bench resumed the hearing. Hamid Khan emphasized that the review petitions should be heard by the same numerical strength bench that had delivered the judgment. He then referred the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a reference was filed against him in the Supreme Judicial Council. He submitted that a 10-member bench was hearing the review against the SC judgment by the 10 judges. However, in the middle of the hearings Justice Faisal Arab retired the then chief justice; therefore, included another judge (Justice Amin) in the bench hearing the review petitions of Justice Faez. Hamid then contended that under Article 191A of the constitution the constitutional benches are constituted by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which is dominated by the executive members. Justice Mandokhail told that this arrangement was due to 26th Amendment. He then asked from the SIC council do you accept the 26th Amendment? Then he told him to move on his next point. Hamid reacted; 'Do you stop me from arguing my case'. Justice Mandokhail told him that 'you have 10 minutes to make your argument; otherwise, sit down.' Hamid replied: 'You are angry, do not hear the case just now.' The conversation continued in a confrontational manner, with Justice Mandokhail telling him to sit down if he does not want to present his arguments. 'I know how to do my job, you should be careful with your words,' Justice Mandokhail said. 'I have skipped my mother's funeral to be here and you are joking.' He said the bench would not hear anything irrelevant and had already heard enough. 'We consider you a good lawyer, but what you are doing right now is not the job of a professional lawyer,' he added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SHC orders opening of Governor House for acting governor
The Constitutional Bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC), comprising Justice K.K. Agha and Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, heard Acting Governor Owais Qadir Shah's petition challenging the locking of Governor House offices. The court ordered the immediate reopening of these offices and directed the principal secretary to submit a compliance report by June 23. During the urgent hearing, the bench granted acting governor immediate access to the Sindh Governor's official residence. The court specifically ordered the unlocking of all offices (excluding private residential quarters) and restrained the principal secretary from obstructing the acting governor's access. The court also directed that a copy of the judicial order be transmitted to the President of Pakistan and the Principal Secretary of the Governor's House, Sindh. In the petition, it was averred that since assuming charge, the Acting Governor, Owais Qadir Shah, has been denied entry to the Governor's House for official duties which is a violation of Article 104 of the Constitution. Governor Kamran Tessori has been abroad since June 2. Acting Governor of Sindh, Owais Qadir Shah, informed the court that a meeting on law and order in the was scheduled for today, specifically to discuss matters related to Muharram. The home minister, secretary, IG Sindh, and other officials reached for the meeting. However, the principal secretary stated that the governor had taken the office keys with him. Owais Qadir Shah stated that this was an act of considering the Governor's House as their personal lounge. He cited the Constitution, which clearly states that in the absence of the governor, the acting governor can perform duties. Owais Qadir Shah said, he would write to the chief minister, highlighting that this was a mockery of the Constitution.
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."
Indian Express
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Assam exploring how to ‘push back foreigners' without involving Foreigners Tribunals, Himanta says
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday said that the state government is exploring the possibility of 'pushing back' suspected foreigners into Bangladesh without going through the existing process of identification via Foreigners Tribunals. To support this, he cited a 1950 law, which was issued before the institution of Foreigners Tribunals in the state. He stated that the Supreme Court, while hearing the question of the validity of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, had stated that this law is still in force. 'When the Supreme Court had taken up the matter of Clause 6A of the Citizenship Act, that was under a Constitutional Bench. The Bench had mentioned that… that the Assam government does not have to keep approaching the judiciary in the matter of identifying foreigners. There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order. The Supreme Court has said that this law is still in force. According to this law, the DC has the authority to issue an order for immediate pushback. For whatever reason, this had not been brought to our notice by our lawyers, and we were not aware of it either. In the past few days, this has come to our attention. So we will discuss this,' he told reporters on the sidelines of an event. Last week, Sarma had confirmed that the state is carrying out 'push backs' of people who had been declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners Tribunals by invoking a February 4 Supreme Court order. The top court had pulled up the state for not initiating the process of deporting declared foreigners lodged in the Matia detention centre. Civil groups as well as sections of opposition parties have argued that these 'push backs' violate the procedures of deportation. On Saturday, Sarma said, 'Pushbacks will continue and the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused because of the NRC (National Register of Citizens), will be sped up again. And this time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we won't send them to a tribunal; we will just keep pushing them back. Preparations for this are going on.' Foreigners Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies which determine whether a person presented before them, usually referred by the border police or those listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls, is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court.
