Latest news with #HamidKhan
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
Business Recorder
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats in assemblies: SC allows live-streaming of proceedings of review pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court allowed live-streaming of proceedings of review petitions on allotting reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The Court, however, dismissed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) three applications. First, application raised objection on the composition of bench. Second, there should be same numerical strength that had heard the original case; third, that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday heard SIC's applications, filed through senior advocates, Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqui. Following the announcement of the short order, Faisal thanked the bench, saying despite the fact his applications were dismissed, he is grateful to the bench. 'Very grateful to you,' he again said. Before rising, Justice Jamal Khan told Faisal that his earlier conduct was unbecoming and unexpected. Faisal replied; 'I am ashamed of it.' After the conclusion of Makhdoom Ali Khan's argument, when the bench announced that they will reassemble after 10 minutes to announce short order. Faisal Siddiqui along with Hamid Khan in a loud voice said; 'Court cannot deny them the right of rebuttal.' The bench then granted him and Hamid Khan the time to rebut the points raised by Makhdoom in his arguments. Makhdoom, representing some MNAs of PML-N and PPP, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to SC's order de-seated, contended that the hearing of review petitions by the same bench under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been taken over by Article 191A of the constitution, adding now this provision will deal in constituting the constitutional benches. He said in view of Article 191A it is not practicable to place the review petition before the same bench that has delivered the judgment. Makhdoom argued that the present bench is not of 11 members, but 13 members. He said all the available judges in the SC were consulted, two judges were not made part of the bench as they had heard this case in the Peshawar High Court, while two judges dismissed the review petitions, therefore, the present bench comprises 11 judges. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Dissenting judges can be part of 'CB bench'
The lawyer for the petitioners, seeking review of apex court's decision of allotting reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), argued on Wednesday that the judges, who disagreed with the majority, could remain part of the bench. An 11-member Constitutional Bench (CB), headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review appeals against the Supreme Court's decision on July 12, 2024 in reserved seats case. During the hearing, the lawyer for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) Hamid Khan concluded his arguments. Earlier this month, a 13-member CB admitted for hearing the review pleas with an 11-2 majority decision. Two members of the bench, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, dismissed the review petitions as inadmissible. Later, a new cause list was issued, which said that Justice Malik and Justice Abbasi would not be part of the bench for further hearing of the petitions. During Wednesday's hearing, bench member Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked the question whether judges, who disagree, would remain on the bench. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that the judges, who do not give a decision on the merits, could remain part of the bench. He said in the current scenario, if five more judges say tomorrow that the composition of the bench was not correct, then the majority decision would be a letter of seven judges. And if an order of the court is signed, the lawyer added, it would be called order of the court. "There has been such a history that there was no order of the court," he continued. "Judges who do not give a decision on the merits can remain part of the bench." Makhdoom Ali Khan started arguments after SIC lawyer Hamid Khan completed his arguments on a miscellaneous application regarding live broadcast of the court proceedings. He said that at least there was an example of approval of a pilot project in this regard. Hamid Khan requested the court to first decide on his application for the live streaming of the proceedings. However, Justice Aminuddin Khan replied that not every application would be decided first. He said that there were more applications also, which would be decided after all were heard. Hamid Khan also said that there were many petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court. On that Justice Mandokhel asked what was connection between the review appeals and the 26th Amendment. Hamid Khan said that constitutional benches were formed under the 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Aminuddin told the lawyer that the judges were bound by the Constitution of Pakistan, therefore, the constitutional bench was hearing the case. After Hamid Khan's arguments, Makhdoom Ali Khan started his arguments. He said that the Supreme Court gave a short order on July 12, 2024, while the filing of the review appeals began July 18. The detailed decision of the apex court was issued on September 23.
Express Tribune
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'Judge's consent needed for transfer'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined the procedure for transferring judges in India, noting that unlike the neighboring country, Pakistan's Constitution requires a high court judge's consent before they can be transferred to another high court. A five-member constitutional bench (CB) led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar resumed hearing multiple petitions challenging the transfer of three judges from provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), as well as the subsequent change in the IHC judges' seniority list. During the proceedings, Hamid Khan, representing the Lahore High Court Bar, continued his arguments, stating that several legal aspects of judges' transfers from high courts need thorough consideration. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that in India, judges' consent is not required for transfers, and such decisions are made in consultation with the chief justice of the high court of that state. "In our system, however, obtaining a judge's consent for transfer is a constitutional requirement," he noted. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that India follows a unified cadre system for high court judges, while Pakistan does not have a similar system for seniority. Justice Shakeel Ahmed added that in India, the seniority list for high court judges is uniform. Hamid Khan argued that in India, consultation with the chief justice is mandatory prior to any transfer. He said consent is essential when transferring judges and that, under Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, consultation is required before a transfer or new appointment. "The selection of judges for transfer must be based on merit and that the executive branch should not hold the authority to nominate judges for transfer. This power should rest solely with the chief justice," he asserted. Hamid Khan pointed out that instead of transferring judges to the IHC, new appointments are often made. "In a recent case, the IHC acting chief justice was consulted regarding the transfer of a judge from Balochistan, but the advice for transfers was not approved by the Cabinet," he added. Idrees Ashraf Advocate, representing PTI founder Imran Khan also presented his arguments. He stated that the transfer notification did not mention the tenure of the transferred judges and claimed that such transfers could lead to discrimination among judges within the same high court. Justice Mazhar asked the counsel if Article 25, which ensures equality before the law, should be considered in the process of judges' transfers. He also inquired whether the counsel would be satisfied if the transfer tenure was fixed at two years, noting that the core issue remains the matter of seniority. The court later adjourned the hearing until 9:30 am today (Wednesday).
Express Tribune
06-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Senate seeks clarity on barter trade
Pakistan sees the barter trade as an opportunity to access cheaper energy from Russia and Iran, as well as coal from Afghanistan, without using dollars. photo: file Listen to article The Senate Panel on Tuesday has urged the Commerce Ministry to address confusion surrounding Pakistan's barter trade policy with Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia, warning that unclear frameworks risk undermining trade potential. The Senate Standing Committee on Commerce Chaired by Senator Anusha Rehman took up the barter trade issues with Iran. The high-level committee meeting focused on mechanisms to achieve the government's export targets, with a particular emphasis on the evolving barter trade arrangements with neighbouring countries. The committee directed the Ministry of Commerce to expedite the approval of pending summaries for barter trade and amendments to the Import Policy Order. Members expressed concern over policy ambiguity, especially regarding trade with Iran, Russia, and Afghanistan under a barter system following banking restrictions with these countries. Senator Hamid Khan criticised the existence of separate policies for barter and traditional trade, calling it "malicious," and asserting that "global trade operates under a unified Import Policy Order (IPO)." Meanwhile, Senator Saleem Mandviwalla highlighted the strategic importance of barter trade in curbing cross-border smuggling, stating, "Barter trade with Iran and Afghanistan will help prevent smuggling." Traders impacted by the delays informed the committee that over 1,200 trucks loaded with goods under barter agreements, particularly sesame seeds and ricehave been stranded at the border due to procedural hurdles, with transactions conducted outside the dollar-based payment system. In response, the committee agreed to convene a joint meeting with the finance minister, commerce minister, and the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) governor to resolve the impasse. Documents shared with the committee revealed that the Ministry of Commerce has finalised a draft summary proposing an exemption from Electronic Import Forms (EIF) for imports of Iranian-origin goods via land routes. The exemption, aimed at facilitating trade in the absence of formal banking channels, has been circulated among the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), SBP, and Finance Division for feedback before submission to the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) of the Cabinet. According to the draft, the exemption from paragraph 3 of the Import Policy Order 2022 and EIF requirements under the SBP's Foreign Exchange Manual would apply solely to Iranian-origin goods imported by land, until banking channels are formally established. The exemption does not extend to non-Iranian-origin goods imported via Iran, due to the availability of regular banking arrangements with other countries. The FBR will oversee verification of the goods' origin under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Rule 433-A of the Customs Rules, 2001. The current EIF exemption for Iranian imports is set to expire on May 15, 2025. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Commerce is reviewing the existing barter trade framework and SROs in consultation with stakeholders to operationalise the system. Key decisions from recent meetings include aligning barter trade rules with the Import and Export Policy Orders 2022, eliminating the predefined list of tradable goods in SRO 642(I)/2023, and awaiting inputs from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on sanctioned entities. The FBR is also expected to propose amendments enabling credit transfers or netting of trade values under the barter system. The SBP, while acknowledging the necessity of EIF waivers given the absence of banking ties with Iran and Afghanistan, cautioned against potential misuse and recommended stronger controls in the WEBOC and Pakistan Single Window (PSW) systems to ensure only genuine traders benefit. The central bank further advised prioritising the operationalisation of the barter trade mechanism over continued reliance on EIF exemptions, which risk encouraging informal settlements. Additionally, the Ministry of Commerce has proposed mandatory certificates of origin for all goods imported from Iran and Afghanistan, to ensure compliance with customs regulations and to prevent circumvention of import restrictions, particularly for high-risk goods. The committee also addressed the issue of illegal trade, including smuggling of tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and tyres. A subcommittee comprising Senators Zeeshan Khanzada, Sarmad Ali, and Faisal Rahman was formed to present recommendations on the tobacco sector. The issue of counterfeit medicines was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Health for further review. In a bid to modernise trade practices, the committee urged the Ministry of Commerce and trade associations, including towel manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry, to adopt a digitised system introduced by private firm Galaxefi Solutions. On the committee's invitation, Galaxefi founder and CEO Asif Pervez delivered a detailed presentation on how the firm's automation and AI solutions could transform cross-border trade operations. Trade and Investment Officers (TIOs) of the Ministry of Commerce posted abroad also briefed the committee on emerging global trade opportunities, signalling Pakistan's continued commitment to expanding its international trade footprint.
