Constitutional Bench | Pakistan

A five-member Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday referred a plea against the detention of Baloch Yakjehti Committee chief Mahrang Baloch to the Practice and Procedure Committee, which forms benches and fixes cases under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The plea, filed by Mahrang’s sister Nadia Baloch through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi in June, urges the SC to set aside an April 15 order of the Balo­ch­istan High Court (BHC) that rej­ected a petition against Mahrang’s detention under the Main­tenance of Public Order— a law that empowers authorities to arrest and detain individuals suspected of posing a threat to public order initially for a period of 30 days. Mahrang is currently detained at the Hudda District Prison in Quetta on charges of attacking Quetta Civil Hospital and inciting people to violence. The plea filed by her sister was taken up by the CB today. The CB was headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprised Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali...

A five-member Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on PTI leader Shibli Faraz’s appeal against his disqualification as a senator. On July 31, Faraz, along with PTI’s Omar Ayub and other lawmakers, was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment by a Faisalabad anti-terrorism court for his involvement in the May 9, 2023 riots. Subsequently, he was disqualified as the Senate opposition leader under Article 63(1h) (disqualification from parliament due to conviction) of the Constitution. After being denied relief by the Peshawar High Court (PHC), Ayub and Faraz approached the SC on October 4 against the former’s order under Article 185(3) of the Constitution (appellate jurisdiction). Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the CB took up four appeals — two each by Ayub and Faraz — for hearing today, according to the cause list. The bench also included Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shakeel Ahmad. ...

Justice Ayesha Malik on Wednesday observed that there was no bar on a full Supreme Court hearing a case fixed before the Constitutional Bench under Article 191A introduced in the 26th Amendment. She made the remarks as an eight-member resumed hearing over three dozen petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which was passed by Parliament during an overnight session in October last year. At the time, the PTI claimed seven of its lawmakers were abducted to gain their favour as the party opposed the legislation. The Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) also alleged its two senators were being pressured, with both later defying party line to vote in the tweaks’ favour. The legislation, which altered judicial authority and tenure, has been a lightning rod for debate, with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s independence. The tweaks took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered a Specia...

Senior lawyer Abid Shahid Zuberi on Tuesday told the Supreme Court’s (SC) Constitutional Bench (CB) that the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) had the power to form a full court as it took up a set of petitions against the 26th Amendment. The 26th Amendment was passed by Parliament during an overnight session in October last year, with the PTI claiming seven of its lawmakers were abducted to gain their favour as the party opposed the legislation. The Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) also alleged its two senators were being, with both later defying party line to vote in the tweaks’ favour. The legislation, which altered judicial authority and tenure, has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s independence. The tweaks took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the CJP’s term at three years and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of the CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved th...

An eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday began its deliberations on the petitioners’ request to form a full court to hear a set of pleas challenging the 26th Amendment. The Amendment, which was approved by both houses of parliament in October last year, altered judicial authority and tenure, and has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s autonomy. It took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered a Special Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of the CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that enabled its establishment. The legislation had been challenged by various bar associations, bar councils, lawyers, the PTI, and some politicians. The SC is also seized with separate petitions seeking the formation...

An eight-judge Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC) approved on Tuesday a set of requests seeking the live streaming of proceedings on pleas challenging the 26th Amendment. The Amendment, which was approved by both houses of parliament in October last year, altered judicial authority and tenure, and has been a lightning rod for debate with both opposition parties and legal experts questioning its impact on the judiciary’s autonomy. It took away the SC’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered the prime minister to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior SC judges. It also paved the way for the formation of the CB, which is now hearing petitions against the very legislation that led to its establishment. It has been challenged by various high court bar associations, the PTI and others. A CB headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprises Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Mus...

The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) on Thursday ruled that the eight-judge majority judgment announced on July 12, 2024, was not justified in granting relief to the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) by invoking Article 187 of the Constitution that empowers the court to do complete justice when no issue regarding the grant of reserved seats to the party was pending before it. Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the CB through a short order on June 26 had overturned the July 12, 2024, majority judgment by declaring the PTI eligible for reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the national and the provincial assemblies. In its detailed verdict issued on Thursday, 10 judges of the 12-judge CB held that there was no justification in giving relief to the PTI under Article 187, especially when appeals were filed and pursued by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution. The facts and circumstances of this case did not require application of Article 187, the detailed judgment sa...

The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Thursday announced its verdict in a case pertaining to the seniority and transfer of Islamabad High Court (IHC) jud­ges, declaring that their transfers were not unconstitutional. The bench — headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panhwar and Shakeel Ahmed — took up petitions filed by five IHC judges, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and the IHC Bar Association, among others. In February, Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar from the Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from the Sindh High Court (SHC) and Justice Muham­mad Asif from the Balochistan High Court (BHC) were transferred to the IHC. The controversy centres around the alteration of the judges’ seniority list after these transfers as Justice Dogar was made the senior puisne judge, which paved the way for his appointment as the acting IHC chief justice after Justice Aamer Farooq’s elevation to the SC. Today’s judge...

• Regrets how CJP could mark cases to a judge mentioned in petition • Observes it is embarrassing for judges to bracket them for deciding in favour of a political party ISLAMABAD: Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan on Wednesday took exception to uncharitable pleadings on behalf of PTI chairman Imran Khan in which disparaging remarks were made against certain judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC). “This is embarrassing even for judges to bracket them for deciding in favour of a political party,” Justice Hassan regretted, adding how the Chief Justice of Pakistan could mark cases to the judge mentioned in the petition after reading such remarks in the plea. Justice Hassan was a member of the five-judge Constitutional Bench that had taken up a joint petition filed by five IHC judges — Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kaya­­ni, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sat­tar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz — pleading that three transferred judges should not be treated as IHC judges until they take a fresh oath under Artic...