Latest news with #DistrictCourts
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHC judge defies bench on appeals transfer
Listen to article Another dispute has erupted in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq has declined to accept the order of a two-judge bench to transfer civil appeals, pending in the high court for adjudication, to the district judiciary, and refusing to transfer the appeals in his docket. The division bench, comprising Justice Azam Khan and Justice Inam Amin Minhas, had ordered the transfer of 1,594 civil appeals to the district judiciary following the Civil Courts Amendment Act 2025 that redefines the appellate jurisdiction in civil matters. Justice Ishaq termed the bench's judicial order illegal. "I come to the rather embarrassing conclusion that the decision of the Division Bench in Civil Reference no 1/2025 was coram non judice, per incuriam, and an exercise of administrative authority cloaked as a judicial decision", he said in an order. Justice Ishaq said that the division bench's order violated the Article 175 (2) of the Constitution. He wondered why it did not occur to the judges of the bench or to the bar representatives that the parties might have to pay additional fees to the lawyers for hearings of appeals in district courts. "Had the interest of the litigants genuinely mattered to the Office, to the Division Bench, and to the Bars representatives, they could easily have interpreted. IHC judge defies bench on appeals transfer the amendment prospectively", said the order passed by Justice Ishaq. The judge further said that when the legislatures made such an express command for transfer – coupled with conferral of exclusive jurisdiction then it must be followed, "but when it stops short and simply changes the jurisdictional forum without specifying exclusive jurisdiction to a forum, then it follows inexorably from the presumption that the Legislature is presumed to be aware of all the laws that the Legislature intended to leave it to the Courts to apply the precedent law to decide the fate of pending cases, and the preponderance of precedent", the order said. "I say with a heavy heart that the Office, my learned brothers, as well as the Bars representatives, have not cared a bit about the plight of the litigants before the High Court, the utter inconvenience they will suffer by a de novo hearing of their appeals by the District Courts, the additional financial burden they will have to bear by paying fresh fees to the counsels for cases that have been, in most part, substantially argued before the High Court and, above all, they did not care in the least about the much higher pendency before the Judges in the District Courts, who also conduct civil and criminal trials, and with unrivalled nonchalance preferred to off-load the High Court's burden on them," it continued. "I feel sympathy for the Judges in the District Courts, who in all likelihood would wonder why could the eleven Judges of the High Court not girdle their belts to decide 1,594 appeals instead of offloading them to an almost equal number of Additional District Judges who are much, much more burdened with work then we are". The court also ordered the office to circulate the copy of this order to all the judges for their information and, should any of them agree with me, then for them to consider saying so in a written communique to the Chief Justice". "Further, the Office will also send a copy of this order to the Islamabad Bar Council and to the two Bar Associations for circulation amongst the members of the Bars", the order said. The hearing of case was adjourned until last week of September.
New York Times
17-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Ketanji Brown Jackson Knows How to Get People's Attention
When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote her ringing dissent in the case of Trump v. CASA, which severely curtailed the ability of lower courts to serve as a check on unlawful executive orders, she wanted to make abundantly clear the danger of what she regarded as a 'seismic shock' to American legal norms. 'Courts must have the power to order everyone (including the executive) to follow the law — full stop,' she wrote. She continued, in a voice dripping with sarcasm, 'The majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the District Courts.' Social media platforms exploded with outrage. One user asked, in apparent disbelief, 'Did Ketanji Brown Jackson actually pop that stupid little 'wait for it' gag in a SCOTUS opinion?' Another said the dissent 'single-handedly degraded 235 years, four months, and 25 days of SCOTUS precedent.' The worst of them turned the justice's language back on her as a weapon. 'Ketanji Brown Jackson is … (wait for it) …' — well, I won't repeat the insult here, but for good measure, they added, 'full stop.' Her critics were right to note that Jackson was doing something unusual. And it wasn't just those examples. She peppered the whole dissent with expressions like 'Why all the fuss?' 'Do not take my word for it,' 'Here is what I mean,' and the assessment — again with unmistakable sarcasm — 'That is some solicitation.' You won't find anything like that in Marbury v. Madison. What's striking about Jackson's turns of phrase is that they employ what we typically regard as oral language — spontaneous, spoken words — in an extremely serious written text. That choice, and the blowback it encountered, are a chance to consider the arbitrariness and narrowness of the conventions dictating how legal opinions should be written. The expectation that their language be timeless, faceless and Latinate is a matter of custom, not necessity. 'Why all the fuss?' indeed. Jackson is, at 54, the youngest justice on the court. She was raised in the 1980s, a time when America's writing culture was getting markedly less hidebound. Waving aside the hats and girdles and stuffy dance steps of old, the counterculture had shown America how to let its language hang out, too. A new, looser style of writing allowed a play between the oral and the written, and the result enriched the culture rather than impoverishing it. I can't speak for Jackson, but that shift had a big impact on a great many people who grew up in that era's wake. It definitely had a big impact on me. I write in what I hope is a conversational style. Like Jackson, I have sometimes been scolded for it by people who would prefer that I write 'with a tie on,' as it were. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Express Tribune
10-06-2025
- Express Tribune
Court clerk sentenced to death for lawyer's murder
A Dera Ghazi Khan court clerk has been sentenced to death and fined Rs600,000 after being found guilty of murdering a junior lawyer within the premises of the district court. District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Abbas announced the verdict on Monday, concluding a five-month trial in which the accused, Rehmatullah, was convicted of fatally stabbing junior lawyer Saddam Hussain and injuring another lawyer, Akhtar Hussain Lashari, during a violent incident on December 28, 2024. The attack occurred inside the District Courts complex. Saddam Hussain, the brother of Advocate Tajammul Shabbir, died at the scene. Advocate Akhtar Hussain sustained injuries in the assault. Fellow lawyers managed to overpower Rehmatullah on the spot and handed him over to Civil Lines Police. The case was registered based on a complaint filed by the victim's uncle, Advocate Hafiz Ashiq Hussain. Police completed their investigation and submitted the charge sheet without delay. The trial was conducted under the supervision of Judge Abbas with the prosecution led by Shamshad Ahmed Qureshi. After hearing the case, the court sentenced Rehmatullah to death for murder and imposed a fine of Rs500,000 in compensation to the victim's family. For the injury caused to Advocate Akhtar Hussain, the convict received a five-year prison term and an additional Rs100,000 in compensation. Failure to pay the fine will result in six more months of imprisonment. Following the verdict, Rehmatullah was transferred to Central Jail.
The Hindu
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Reimagining access to justice and rectifying systemic barriers
Public confidence in the Indian judiciary appears to be wavering due to a slew of reasons. The alleged discovery of burnt currency notes at the residence of High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited concerns over judicial corruption and prompted several judges to publicly declare their assets. There is also a perception that caste, religion, and political affiliations often dictate judicial conduct. Recently, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court delivered a speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. Meanwhile, the continuing spectacle of 'bulldozer justice', despite the Supreme Court rendering such extra-judicial demolitions illegal, further signals the increasing pressures on the judiciary. Rethinking judicial reforms Amid a credibility crisis, Tareekh Pe Justice: Reforms for India's District Courts (Simon & Schuster) by Prashant Reddy T. and Chitrakshi Jain offers a timely and critical intervention. The authors argue that meaningful judicial reforms must begin at the level of the district courts — the first and often the only point of contact for most Indian litigants. Far removed from the grandeur of constitutional benches, these courts often operate from dilapidated facilities. Yet they form the backbone of the judiciary, adjudicating the vast majority of civil and criminal cases across the country. Reddy and Jain challenge the popular narrative that a 'resource crunch' is the primary affliction of the district judiciary, manifesting in burgeoning case backlogs and a pervasive culture of adjournments. These visible systemic infirmities are merely the tip of the iceberg. Drawing on anecdotal evidence, the authors echo a concern once voiced by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud — that district judges operate under the looming threat of retribution, acutely aware that delivering a verdict perceived as unpalatable to the ruling dispensation could invite Kafkaesque disciplinary proceedings. These enquiries, initiated by the High Courts, have routinely admitted unreliable hearsay evidence, resulting in the arbitrary dismissal of judges. Culture of opacity Even more concerning is the secrecy surrounding these proceedings. The authors are unflinching in their critique: 'While the judiciary has been vocal about advocating for transparency in government, it has remained resistant to subjecting itself to external scrutiny.' This entrenched culture of opacity extends to judicial statistics. The book raises serious concerns about the reliability of data published on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), an online repository launched in 2015 under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project to track case statuses across all levels of the judiciary. The authors draw attention to the NJDG's own disclaimer, which concedes that it does not offer verified or authentic information. With scathing candour, they remark, 'These are strange disclaimers for the e-courts project, which has consumed ₹2,308 crore of public money since its inception in 2005.' Reddy and Jain also flag instances where the Supreme Court has arbitrarily invoked Article 121 of the Constitution to withhold statistical information from Parliament. While the provision restricts parliamentary debate on the conduct of individual judges except during impeachment proceedings, they contend that it cannot be used to insulate the judiciary's performance from legitimate scrutiny. Adopting a similar adversarial stance, the Supreme Court Registry has aggressively litigated against Right to Information (RTI) requests filed by citizens seeking data on judicial delays and other systemic limitations. In the final sections of the book, three radical reforms are proposed to fundamentally reimagine the justice system. The first involves restructuring the judiciary to mirror the U.S. model, with two parallel hierarchies of courts — one to adjudicate disputes under parliamentary law and another under State laws. Pointing to the growing trend of 'tribunalisation' as evidence that this shift is already in motion, they argue that such a framework would bolster accountability by establishing clearer chains of command. The second proposal advocates for the reintroduction of jury trials to foster civic engagement. While acknowledging the additional resource demands, the authors reason that the potential to restore institutional credibility and strengthen civic culture far outweighs the marginal increase in costs. Lastly, they underscore the importance of procedural law in ensuring fairness and predictability in adjudication. Demystifying the law Making justice truly accessible requires not only institutional reforms but also a concerted effort to cultivate greater awareness of legal rights. This is particularly crucial for women, who are increasingly vulnerable to violence, even within the confines of their homes. The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 2019-2021 revealed that 29.3% of married Indian women aged 18 to 49 have experienced domestic or sexual violence, yet a staggering 87% of victims of marital violence do not seek help. All too often, due to a lack of legal literacy, countless women endure abuse, exploitation, and mistreatment in silence. Legally Yours (HarperCollins) by Manasi Chaudhari serves as a beacon of hope, offering women a comprehensive resource to understand and assert their legal rights. Drawing on her decades of experience as a family lawyer, Chaudhari is cognisant that legal literacy extends far beyond merely knowing that laws exist. It requires a nuanced understanding of how legal provisions can be meaningfully applied to navigate the complex realities of women's personal and professional lives. Her book offers practical insights and actionable solutions to a range of issues that many women confront daily: What recourse is available if someone threatens to leak private photos? What are the property rights in a live-in relationship? How can one respond to workplace sexual harassment? What remedies are available if an employer unlawfully withholds maternity benefits? Yet, Chaudhari remains mindful of her audience, consciously avoiding the intimidating jargon typically associated with legal discourse. Instead, she infuses the book with engaging elements — Bollywood references, quizzes, and group activities. She also debunks several common myths: that domestic violence only involves physical abuse and protects only married women; that silence constitutes consent; and that maternity leave is unavailable to women who suffer a miscarriage, among others. In doing so, the book democratises legal knowledge and empowers a crucial stakeholder to confidently navigate a system that too often feels alienating.
