Latest news with #SupremeCourt(PracticeandProcedure)Act
Business Recorder
3 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
Express Tribune
31-01-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Judges panels to decide case hearings
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday issued its written order regarding withdrawal of two judicial orders issued on January 13 and 16. The order stated that the judges committees constituted under Article 191A(4) and Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act were the legal and constitutional fora to determine which bench would hear what matters. The written order said that the exercise of powers and performance of legal and constitutional functions by both the committees of the SC and the CB did not impinge upon the judicial functions of any bench.
