Latest news with #ex-CJP
Business Recorder
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SJC decides 19 complaints, defers 5
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), unanimously, decided 19 complaints out of 24, and deferred five for the time being. In February, the SJC had examined as many as 46 complaints against constitutional office-holders, disposed of 40 of them, sought comments on five complaints and asked for further information in one case. According to a press release, issued by PRO SC on Saturday, the Council examined 24 complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution. It said, '19 complaints were unanimously decided to be filed while five others were deferred for the time being.' The Council meeting was held under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is also Chairman of the SJC at Supreme Court, Islamabad. It was attended by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah (present through video link), Justice Munib Akhtar, Chief Justice Lahore High Court Aalia Neelum and Chief Justice Sindh High Court Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar. The sources said that during the meeting a proposal by CJP Yahya was placed before the members that action should be taken against those complainants who file frivolous applications against the judges of the superior courts in order to discourage such practice. However, the Council did not approve it, and also preferred that judges whose names are cleared by the SJC are not disclosed. The Council discussed all the agenda items one by one. The proposed draft of Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules, 2025 was approved by the council, while it was resolved that procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view; therefore, these required further deliberation. Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz, on March 25, 2024 had written a letter to the SJC against the alleged 'interference' and 'intimidation' by the 'operatives of intelligence agencies.' In their letter, they sought guidance from the SJC with regard to 'the duty of a judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies that seek to interfere with discharge of his/ her official functions and qualify as intimidation'. Former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in response to their letter held various meetings with the Supreme Court judges and even with the Prime Minister. He then formed a one-man Commission comprising ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the allegations of the IHC judges. However, Justice Tassaduq, due to trolling on social media declined to head the commission. Ex-CJP Faez then took a suo moto and constituted a seven-member bench to examine the IHC judges' concerns. The bench conducted three hearings on it. However, Justice Yahya, who was also a member of the bench, opposed the suo moto and recused from the bench. He in his order had proposed that as the IHC judges wrote a letter to the SJC; therefore, the Council should do something about it. Justice Yahya after becoming Chief Justice of Pakistan summoned the SJC meeting, wherein Justice Munib was appointed as head of a committee to propose amendments to the code of conduct. The sources said, in today's (July 12) Council meeting, Justice Munib tabled a comprehensive report in that regard. The Council members after examining the report resolved that the procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view therefore these required further deliberation. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
CJP summons SJC meeting
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has summoned a Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) meeting on July 12 to review pending complaints and consider amendments to the SJC rules. The Council is headed by CJP Yahya Afridi, and comprises two senior most judges of the Supreme Court; i.e., Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, and two senior Chief Justices of High Courts; i.e., Justice Aalia Neelum, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court (LHC), and Justice S M Attique Shah, Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court (PHC). The Supreme Court's PRO on February 7, 2025 issued Judicial Performance report on the completion of CJP Yahya Afridi's 100 Days. According to that, the SJC had examined 46 complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution received against constitutional officeholders, out of which, 40 were disposed of, whereas, comments in five complaints were sought, and one was sent for information. Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz on March 25, 2024 had written a letter to the SJC against the alleged 'interference' and 'intimidation' by the 'operatives of intelligence agencies.' In the letter, they sought guidance from the SJC with regard to the duty of a 'judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies that seek to interfere with discharge of his/ her official functions and qualify as intimidation'. Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on their letter had taken a suo moto and constituted a seven-member bench to examine the IHC judges' concerns. However, Justice Yahya opposed the suo moto and recused from the bench. Justice Faez also formed one-man Commission comprising ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the allegations of the IHC judges. However, Justice Tassaduq due to social media declined to head the commission. After that no further progress was made in that respect. Following the IHC judges' letter, complaints were filed against five judges of the IHC, which have been pending. The Judicial Performance report also stated that significant reforms were implemented to enhance efficiency, transparency, accountability, and accessibility in the justice sector. A key aspect of these reforms includes the swift resolution of complaints against constitutional officeholders, ensuring accountability mechanisms function efficiently, and upholding public confidence in the judiciary. The amendments in the Supreme Judicial Council Code of Conduct and Procedure of Enquiry 2005 were considered. However, sources shared that Justice Munib was given task to propose the amendments in the SJC Code. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
ECP rejects criticism after SC ruling on reserved seats
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rejected on Saturday what it called 'baseless propaganda' being circulated in certain media circles in response to renewed criticism following the Supreme Court's constitutional bench's decision on reserved seats. The criticism arose after the Supreme Court's constitutional bench dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats. This decision allowed the ruling coalition, led by the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), to emerge as the single largest party and to consolidate a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Amid shifting political dynamics, the ECP has reiterated its constitutional role and defended the legality of its decisions, saying the claims were contrary to facts and intended to mislead the public. In a statement, a spokesperson for ECP said that some circles in the media were engaged in baseless propaganda against the Commission following the recent decision of the top court. The spokesperson said that the Commission declares this propaganda to be contrary to facts and based on falsehoods. The statement said that such elements were unjustifiably targeting the Commission with criticism. It added that historical facts and numerous decisions of the superior judiciary provide irrefutable evidence that the Commission has always performed its duties in light of the Constitution and law. 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the position of the Election Commission,' it read. Read More: PTI loses court battle for reserved seats For example, in the Senate elections, the spokesperson said, the Commission's stance regarding secret ballot and show of hands procedures, which was fully in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, was upheld by a Supreme Court bench headed by the then ex-CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed. In the case of the disqualification election in Daska, the official added, the Commission's decision was not only declared valid by the Supreme Court bench, led by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial but also recognized as a constitutional action. The Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had also endorsed the legal interpretation of the Commission concerning PTI's intra-party elections, the statement maintained. Furthermore, it said, in the case of the delisting of the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), when the Commission delisted APML for failing to conduct intra-party elections, and this decision was challenged by APML in the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the Commission's decision. Following this, the spokesperson said, the Commission delisted several other parties that failed to comply with the law, keeping the Supreme Court's decision in mind. The Supreme Court also accepted the Commission's appeal regarding Punjab Election Tribunals, rejecting the Lahore High Court's decision and upholding the Commission's stance. Also Read: PM extends olive branch to PTI amid reserve seats setback Similarly, it was maintained, in the recent case concerning reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council, first the Peshawar High Court and now the SC constitutional bench have upheld the Commission's position as constitutional and legal. 'All these and many other judicial decisions are undeniable proof that the Election Commission does not alter its decisions due to political pressure, public clamor, or for cheap popularity,' the spokesperson said, adding the ECP rather performs its duties solely based on constitutional requirements, legal jurisdiction, and evidence. The ECP said that it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Commission is a constitutional institution that is not intimidated by the unscrupulous tactics of any political party or vested interest group. Therefore, it concluded, it is in no way appropriate to hold the Commission responsible for shortcomings and weaknesses.
Business Recorder
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
PTI counsel says no time violation in 15-day window for independents
ISLAMABAD: The counsel of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) asserted that there is no violation of time-line in the majority judgment by granting 15 days to the 41 independents to join the PTI. The judgment of eight judges in reserved seats has straight way declared that 39 independents, out of 80, were PTI candidates, while for 41 candidates laid down the mechanism for their joining the PTI. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and the ex-CJP Qazi Faez also ruled that 39 independents, who in their nomination paper mentioned PTI, are the PTI MNAs. Justice Yahya Afridi also had similar view. Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that 11 judges had accepted the reality that injustice was caused to the PTI candidates in the general elections 2024. Defending the majority judgment, he argued that 15 days were given to 41 candidates to inform that on February 8, 2024 of which party they were member, and not to join a political party, adding the majority judgment did not give relief to the PTI, but to the people of Pakistan. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Friday, 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. During the proceeding, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned why did Hamid Raza, who is chairman of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contested election as an independent candidate. Raja clarified that Hamid Raza in his nomination form instead of independent wrote the PTI-SIC alliance. Justice Mandokhail asked Raja that if his argument is accepted then 11 judges' judgment was wrong, and review should have been filed by the SIC rather than the ECP, the PML-N and the PPP. He said the Court cannot compel anyone to join such and such political party. Justice Hilali also questioned whether voting is the fundamental rights? Her objection was that after birth a person does not have voting right automatically, rather he had to wait till the age of 18 years. Justice Baqar Ali Najafi said right of vote is subject to the law and a person can cast vote after attaining the age of 18, and he/she polls vote only when there are elections in his/her constituency. Justice Najafi observed that there had been constitution deviation and the fundamental rights were violated in the past as well. He inquired from Raja what deviation did he see in the last elections, adding if the elections were non transparent and fair then why not the entire process of general elections 2024 declared null and void. Raja responded that instead of striking down the elections the Court laid down the mechanism to rectify the wrongs committed. He submitted that in the past whenever the constitutional scheme was violated or deviated the apex court played its role to bring the situation back to normal, adding if the matter is of general public and the fundamental rights then it can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and Article 187 of the constitution, and under these provisions it has much greater and wider power. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar did not agree with him and said the High Court under Article 199 has greater power than the Supreme Court as it has power of habeas corpus and quo warran to. Raja also contended that there was no issue that the election symbol was taken, but the worst thing happened was that the PTI was derecognised, the candidates were told that if they would write PTI in their nomination forms then those would not be accepted and forced them to write independent in the nomination papers. The violation was committed by the ECP under Article 51 of the constitution that a party was not recognised and its candidates were not allowed to contest election on PTI ticket. These things completely destroyed the sanctity of the elections, he added. The PTI lawyer argued that the reason for joining the SIC was that they had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), which neither contested elections nor had any seat in the Assemblies despite that reserved seats were allocated to it. Earlier, Raja argued that review petitions could be filed if some facts or provisions of law are overlooked, while the erroneous judgment is no ground for review. Similarly, no technical aspect comes in the way to challenge the judgment in review jurisdiction. He contended that a party has to establish that the fact or provision of law was overlooked. The case is adjourned until Monday (June 23). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats case: Ruling ‘amended' constitution, says constitutional bench
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench observed that majority judgment in reserved seats case amended the constitution, as three days mentioned in the constitution for joining a political party by independents in Parliament is increased to 15 days. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned whether the judges should be concerned with what is written in the constitution and the law or the extraneous factors? He noted that constitution was re-written and there is history because it was done in the case of Article 63A of the constitution too. He said when the law is clear then there is no need of 'read in' or 'read down', and the Court has to adhere to the provisions. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC), headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Reserved seats case: SIC lawyer proposes three sets of relief The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Justice Musarrat Hilali said that they majority [judgment] has discussed 13th January 2025 judgment, which review has been pending. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi said they (the majority) have expressed their mind, while alluding to the fact of the case. He asked what the oath of a judge says, and what is expected of him to deliver judgment on the basis of principles or law? Faisal Siddiqui, representing SIC, argued that 11 judges, including Justice (retired) Qazi Faez, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Yahya Afridi, in their verdicts maintained that all the independent candidates are Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members and the PTI is entitled to 78 reserved seats of women and non-Muslims in the National and the provincial assemblies. He requested the bench to dismiss the reviews petition, in which, additional grounds have not been filed. However, Justice Amin told him that the review petitions have been filed only against the majority judgment, while the judgments of other judges are intact. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said: 'We (Justice Jamal and ex-CJP Qazi Faez) have maintained that only those independent candidates who in their nomination papers mentioned PTI and attached the party are the PTI members in the parliament.' He questioned how they can compel anyone who has contested election as an independent to join a particular party, or force anyone not to contest election as an independent. Faisal argued that all the 13 judges held that the PTI-backed independent candidates cannot join the SIC, and also reserved seats cannot be given to it. However, they maintained that the PTI was entitled to the reserved seats, adding the disagreement was on the number of PTI-affiliated candidates. The judges also disagreed with the majority judgment on timeline and the process described for joining the PTI by the independents, the SIC counsel submitted. He said that Justice Yahya had left this issue to be decided by the ECP. Justice Amin said whether any of the party during the original proceedings discussed that the reserved seats should be given to the PTI. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether only one and not all the political parties deserve fair treatment? Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned that Hamid Raza who had established the SIC in 2013 and has been its chairman then why he contested general elections as an independent instead of on the SIC platform, and after winning the election joined the SIC, and PTI-backed independent candidates were asked to join the SIC. She said if a party does not have presence in the parliament then how the independent candidates can join it. She asked what the PTI-backed independents have mentioned in their forms when they were joining the SIC. Faisal argued that the PTI's Intra-Party Election (IPE) was not accepted by the ECP, Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Supreme Court and it was deprived of election symbol. He said that the 11 judges in their judgments stated that the ECP has in fact misunderstood and wrongly applied the Supreme Court judgment that the PTI is out of February 2024 elections. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
