Latest news with #PeshawarHighCourt
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
PHC grills officials over Swat tragedy
Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Justice SM Atiq Shah, expressed strong displeasure over the tragic drowning of 14 tourists in the Swat River and the failure to rescue them in time. During the hearing, he summoned commissioners of Malakand, Hazara, Kohat, Bannu, and DI Khan divisions, along with the regional police officers of the concerned districts, to appear in court today. The two-member bench, comprising Chief Justice Shah and Justice Faheem Wali, heard the case. Petitioner's counsel, Advocate Mohammad Nasir Khan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa's Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel were present in court. The petitioner informed the bench that a catastrophic incident occurred in Swat due to a sudden river swell, resulting in 14 fatalities. He said that unchecked encroachments along the Swat River, especially by hotel owners who construct structures dangerously close to the water, are a major contributing factor to such accidents. "The government remains a silent spectator," he added, alleging that influential figures also own large hotels illegally built along the riverbanks. Justice Shah remarked that the tragedy was a result of administrative negligence and questioned why no preventive measures were taken to ensure the safety of tourists. "Why were rescue operations delayed? Why were safety jackets not delivered by drone? Who is responsible for monitoring river safety?" he asked. The Advocate General responded that an anti-encroachment operation was underway in Swat, and while an air ambulance was available, it could not be deployed in time. However, Justice Shah pressed further, asking whether the government's prior warnings were enforced effectively. The Advocate General conceded he could not confirm implementation details but noted that several officials had been suspended. He also informed the court that a related case is pending before the Supreme Court, which has ordered the government to take necessary action. The bench directed the appearance of commissioners and regional police officers from the five divisions and ordered the provincial government to submit a detailed report on the Swat incident. Filling station case repatriated Meanwhile, PHC has returned a case involving the freezing of a Kohistan-based filling station owner's bank account by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the Accountability Court for reconsideration. The court directed the lower court to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and merit. A division bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad and Justice Fazal Subhan heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel, Advocate Muhammad Farooq Malik, informed the court that his client, Muhammad Saleem, owns a filling station located on the busy Karakoram Highway in Komela, Kohistan, operating on a lease agreement. He explained that the station serves both tourist and heavy vehicles.
Business Recorder
5 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
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
PHC questions FIR in PECA case
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued notices to the federal government and other relevant authorities, seeking a response regarding the registration of an FIR against a local lawyer under the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). A two-member bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Abdul Fayyaz heard the case. During the proceedings, Justice Syed Arshad Ali questioned the legal basis of the FIR, remarking, "How can the police register a case under the PECA Act when it falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)? How can an SHO file such a case?" The petitioner, Advocate Roman Shah, appeared before the court. Justice Arshad Ali asked him why the FIR had been registered. Shah responded that he was unaware of the specific allegations and only knew that it had been filed under PECA. Justice Abdul Fayyaz noted, "The PECA Act falls within FIA's domain. How did the SHO register the FIR?" Justice Arshad Ali further added, "If the matter is within FIA's jurisdiction, then the SHO has no authority to register such a case." The petitioner informed the court that he had already secured interim bail. The Assistant Attorney General told the bench that the FIR was based on a social media post made from the petitioner's account, allegedly targeting a senior official of a security agency. Justice Arshad Ali questioned the petitioner's actions, asking, "Why do you share such content that creates problems?" In response, Advocate Roman Shah denied ownership of the account, stating, "This is not my account. Nowadays, fake accounts are created using other people's photos. I have no knowledge of this post." Following the hearing, the court issued notices to the federal government and other respondents, directing them to submit their replies.
Business Recorder
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Illegal weapons, liquor case: Gandapur's non-bailable arrest warrants suspended
ISLAMABAD: A local court on Thursday suspended the non-bailable arrest warrants issued for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur in a case related to alleged possession of illegal weapons and liquor. Judicial Magistrate Mubashir Hussain Chishti, while hearing the case registered at Bhara Kahu police station, suspended Gandpur's warrants. Gandapur appeared before Mubashir Hassan Chishti along with his legal team, marking his first appearance in the case after issuance of his warrant. During proceedings, Gandpur's counsel Raja Zahoorul Hasan told the court that his client personally appeared before the court. He informed the court that the Peshawar High Court (PHC) had already granted interim bail to the chief minister until July 3. He requested the court to suspend the non-bailable arrest warrants following Gandapur's court appearance. In response, the court asked about the submission of a statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), to which Gandapur assured that the required responses would be submitted after the presentation of the provincial budget. The court approved Gandapur's request and suspended the non-bailable arrest warrants and adjourned the hearing until July 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the court had issued an arrest warrant for Gandapur on September 4, 2024 for not appearing before the court. Gandapur, while talking to the media after appearing before the court, criticised the ongoing legal actions against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leadership and party workers. He stated that numerous cases against the PTI founding chairman and workers are wasting their time and energy. 'These cases are wasting the time and energy of our leadership and workers,' he said, adding that 'once the judiciary is truly independent and all institutions operate within constitutional limits, such challenges will naturally end.' He condemned the recent Israeli attacks on Iran and Palestine and expressed solidarity with both nations. Gandapur also expressed a desire to witness and participate in 'Ghazwa-e-Hind.' To a question about US President Donald Trump and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir's meeting, he said that he had no information and therefore could not comment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
PHC seeks answers on Hayatabad crime surge
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Commissioner Peshawar, and other relevant officials in response to a petition highlighting the worsening law and order situation in the upscale Hayatabad locality. The case was heard by a two-member bench comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal. During the proceedings, petitioner Advocate Muhammad Hamdan informed the court that serious crimes, including street robberies, burglaries, extortion, theft, and armed muggings, have become a daily occurrence in Hayatabad. He noted that with a population exceeding one million, the area is served by only two police stations. The petitioner further stated that criminals often escape by crossing the boundary wall into Khyber district, complicating police efforts due to jurisdictional challenges. He also pointed out that the Safe City Project has not yet been completed, leaving the area increasingly vulnerable. Advocate Hamdan urged the court to order the establishment of additional police stations in Hayatabad and to direct authorities to take concrete steps to restore law and order. In response, the court issued notices to the Chief Secretary, IG Police, Commissioner Peshawar, and other stakeholders, demanding a detailed reply.
