[🇵🇰] The Supreme Court of Pakistan in News

[ghazi]

SC issues notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hamid, 3 others in case against removal of IHC judge​

Haseeb Bhatti
December 15, 2023

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa (C), Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat.–Still from Supreme Court live stream

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to four people, including former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director-general Faiz Hamid, in a case related to the removal of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui as a judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The notices were issued by a five-member bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, which included Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat while hearing an appeal filed by Siddiqui against his removal.

The three others who were issued notices are retired brigadiers Irfan Ramay, former Islamabad High Court chief justice Anwar Khan Kasi, and a former registrar of the Supreme Court, Arbab Muhammad Arif.

Siddiqui had nominated seven individuals in his amended plea, however, the court remarked that three others — former chief of army staff Qamar Javed Bajwa, and two retired brigadiers Faisal Marwat and Tahir Wafai — had no direct connection with the case.

The Supreme Court was seized with an appeal moved by Siddiqui against an opinion of the Supreme Judicial Council, and an Oct 11, 2018, notification under which he was removed as a superior court judge for a speech he delivered at the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi, on July 21 of that year.

The hearing
At the start of the hearing, the chief justice asked the applicant to confirm the truth of his allegations. “Think carefully about whether your allegations are true,” he reiterated.

Siddiqui’s counsel, Hamid Khan, affirmed the truth of the allegations.

The chief justice pointed out that “you are making facilitators as respondents while other beneficiaries are some other people.”

He questioned why the direct beneficiary wasn’t included if facilitators were made respondents.

CJP Isa asked: “Is the Army an independent institution or does it come under someone’s authority?”

Khan responded: “It comes under the government.” The chief justice pressed: “The government is not an individual. Tell us about a person who runs the army.”

He cautioned that Siddiqui’s serious allegations could lead to significant consequences.

Justice Mandokhail emphasised the need for the court to address “what had been happening in the past.”

CJP Isa pointed out that Siddiqui primarily named Faiz Hamid, noting: “Qamar Javed Bajwa had not spoken anything directly about Siddiqui.”

He questioned the logic of issuing a notice to Bajwa. “Why should we issue a notice to him on the basis of this hearsay?”

The chief justice highlighted that there was no direct allegation against Bajwa. He also observed that Ramay was irrelevant to the case.

Justice Mandokhail inquired whether the former IHC chief justice had constituted a bench as allegedly desired by the former DG ISI.

In response to Justice Mandokhail’s question about the decisions on Nawaz’s appeals, the counsel clarified that Nawaz had recently been acquitted after the hearing of his pleas.

CJP Isa noted that Faizabad sit-in of 2017 was, in a speech, referred to as “sponsored”.

The counsel reminded the CJP that he had issued a verdict on the matter.

However, CJP Isa suggested setting the verdict aside and focusing on what the petitioner had written in his plea.

Siddiqui’s counsel asserted that the former ISI DG aimed to prevent Nawaz Sharif from being granted bail before the 2018 polls, “and what he desired had happened”.

After the hearing, the court issued notices to four of the seven respondents and adjourned the hearing until an unspecified date in January.

SC issues notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hamid, 3 others in case against removal of IHC judge

Hearing plea filed by Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, CJP Isa remarks "former COAS Qamar Javed Bajwa" is not directly connected to the case.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi]

SC upholds decision to declare Suri’s ruling unconstitutional​

Nasir Iqbal
January 30, 2024

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has upheld its April 4, 2022 judgement declaring unconstitutional the ruling of the then-deputy speaker on the no-confidence motion against ex-prime minister Imran Khan.

Headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, a five-judge bench on Monday rejected the review petition jointly moved by former then-National Assembly speaker Asad Qaiser and deputy speaker Qasim Khan Suri.

While arguing on behalf of the petitioners, senior counsel Naeem Bukhari said the review petition stated the Supreme Court judgement did not adequately deal with the bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 69(2) of the Constitution.

The clause stated that courts could not inquire into the parliament’s proceedings and “no officer or member” of parliament “shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court” for exercising their powers.

Five-judge bench rejects review plea moved by ex-speaker, deputy speaker

The bench, however, dismissed the plea with an observation that the matter pertained to the deputy speaker’s ruling and not their conduct in the Lower House.

During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that the court could intervene in cases where constitutional violation was committed.

Mr Bukhari argued that the apex court overlooked the point of order raised by the then law minister during the National Assembly session on April 3, 2022, which was related to the house’s business.

Likewise, rules 37(4) and 37(8) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007, read with Article 69(2) of the Constitution, state that the decision given on a point of order is final, thus rendering it immune from judicial scrutiny.

The speaker or the deputy speaker is not liable for the consequences of their decision on a point of order, nor can they be held accountable for them in view of Article 69(2).

The review petition was filed after the Supreme Court had set aside the dissolution of the National Assembly by President Dr Arif Alvi and had directed then prime minister Imran Khan to face the no-trust motion.

The petition had contended that the fundamental right of freedom of association contained in Article 17(2) cannot be abridged by any law, but this does not apply to the Constitution itself, which even enables the suspension of the fundamental rights by Article 233.

It added that the court’s April 8, 2022 judgement considered Article 17(2) overrides Article 69, which was “difficult to comprehend”.

The parliamentary form of government was a salient feature of the Constitution, but it also stated that the decision/ruling of the speaker or deputy speaker on a point of order was final.

The detailed judgement had “imported” Articles 4 and 25 into the internal functioning of the National Assembly, thus invalidating the Rules of Procedure by giving precedence to Article 95 over Article 69 and concluding that the absence of discussion on the point of order and the decision, repudiated the rule of law.

The point of order in question was raised by the information minister Fawad Chaudhry, who said that loyalty to the state was the basic duty of every citizen under Article 5(1).

While claiming that a foreign conspiracy was behind the no-confidence motion, he questioned how this could be allowed and called on the deputy speaker to decide the motion’s constitutionality.

Taking note of the minister’s contention, Mr Suri dismissed the resolution, ruling that it was “contradictory” to the law, the Constitution and the rules.

 

[ghazi]

Justice Rizvi opposes giving right to appeal with retrospective effect​

Nasir Iqbal
December 29, 2023

ISLAMABAD: Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, a member of the 15-judge full court that heard and decided the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 on Thursday, observed that the retrospective expansion of the right to appeal — a substantive right — raises significant apprehensions and threatens to disrupt the finality of judicial pronouncements.

“Such disruptions may have deleterious ramifications not only in terms of the orderly administration of justice but also with respect to the stability and predictability of legal decisions,” observed Justice Rizvi in his additional note.

Although Justice Azhar had upheld the constitutionality of the Practice and Procedure Act, he disagreed with the other judges on giving the right to appeal under Section 5(2) of the act with retrospective effect. He said his dissent was grounded in a conscientious examination of the potential consequences that such retrospective operation may yield.

On Oct 11, a 15-judge full court of the Supreme Court had upheld a law enacted by the PDM-led coalition government to regulate the affairs of the top court, but with a caveat that the right to appeal provided against decisions taken under Article 184(3) of the Constitution would not be applicable with retrospective effect.

Says provision will lead to endless claims and appeals related to ‘past and closed transactions’

The decision was a split verdict by the full court consisting of all 15 available judges which effectively rejected all the challenges to the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.

Justice Rizvi observed that application of the right to appeal with retrospective effect would violate the parties’ fundamental rights because it had the potential to open a floodgate of claims and appeals pertaining to past transactions and settled legal matters.

“The law must concern itself with today’s rights and not yesterday’s,” Justice Rizvi explained.

A legislature cannot legislate today about a situation that occurred 30 years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of that period, the judge observed. “It would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history.”

It is against the fundamental right of fair trial as enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution, Justice Azhar said.

Today’s equals cannot be made unequal by saying that they were unequal 30 years ago and “we will restore that position by making a law today and making it retrospective”, Justice Rizvi emphasised.

Constitutional rights, constitutional obligations, and constitutional consequences could not be tampered in this way, he added.

Arbitrary and unreasonable

Justice Rizvi declared that Section 5(2) of the Act providing the right to appeal to an aggrieved person against whom an order has been made under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, before the Act took effect, was ultra vires under Article 8 of the Constitution as they offend Articles 9, 10, 10-A, 24 & 25 and are arbitrary and unreasonable.

The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws, Justice Rizvi explained. “But every law enacted may not necessarily be tenable on the touchstone of the Constitution.”

It is the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under the law and the Constitution, to look into the fairness and constitutionality of an enactment and even declare it non est if it is found to be in conflict with the Constitution.

“Legislative competence alone is insufficient to make a law valid; it must also withstand the test of constitutionality to be enforceable,” Justice Rizvi said, adding that the failure to meet this standard renders the law invalid and unenforceable.

Normally the courts make utmost effort to save a piece of legislation from becoming invalid, but in certain cases, the courts also apply the doctrine of severance to remove a piece of legislation that distorts the scheme of a parent law or deviates from the Constitution, he added.

Justice Rizvi recalled that countless number of cases had been adjudicated by the apex court in exercise of its power under Article 184 (3) since the Constitution came into force in 1973.

It is a common practice that an aggrieved person is not satisfied unless he exhausts all the remedies available to him under the existing law. Even otherwise, a judgement or order passed under Article 184 (3) cannot be reopened and would be deemed to be a past and closed transaction, Justice Rizvi observed.

For this reason, introducing the right to appeal with retrospective effect raises a profound concern. This could further compromise the principle of res judicata and jeopardise the stability and predictability of the legal system, the apex court judge said.

It would open a floodgate of litigation and potentially overburden the Supreme Court with a daunting task of re-evaluating numerous pre-

settled matters or rights which had accrued on account of determination validly made under the then existing law, Justice Rizvi concluded.

Justice Rizvi opposes giving right to appeal with retrospective effect​

Says provision will lead to endless claims and appeals related to ‘past and closed transactions’
www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi]

7-member SC bench to take up case pertaining to lifetime disqualification tomorrow​

Larger bench formed by three-judge committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.

 

[ghazi]

​

SC procedures act 'strengthened judiciary', apex court notes | The Express Tribune​

Court issues detailed judgment in SC (Practice & Procedures) Act case; observes law does not undermine SC

tribune.com.pk

 

[ghazi]

SC office returns contempt plea against defence secretary​

Nasir Iqbal
December 27, 2023

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court office on Tuesday returned a petition seeking to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Secretary of Defence retired Lt Gen Hamood-uz-Zaman Khan for allegedly disregarding the Oct 23 unanimous decision of declaring the trial of 103 civilians identified in relation to their alleged involvement in the May 9 violence as against the Constitution.

The SC Registrar’s Office returned the petition moved through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui on behalf of Fahim Zaman Khan, Mahnaz Rahman, Prof Dr A.H. Nayyar and Syed Zulfiqar Hussain Gilani, due to ‘a number of deficiencies’ in it.

According to the registrar’s office the petition was being returned since the operation of the order being questioned was suspended on Dec 13 and, therefore, the present contempt of the court petition was not entertainable.
On Dec 13, the Supreme Court, by a majority of five to one, had suspended the operation of its Oct 23 short order that declared as unconstitutional the trial of 103 civilians identified in relation to their alleged involvement in the May 9 violence.
The court office explained that the petitioners have not sent the statement of allegations to the respondents as required by Rule 4, Order 27 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Consequently, the petition was returned along with the paper books for not being entertainable.

In the petition, the petitioners had argued that the alleged contemnor was a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court in which the trial of civilians by the military courts was challenged, pursuant to which Oct 23 judgment came.

The petition had regretted that the alleged contemnor was responsible for implementing the directions issued on Oct 23, because the respondent contemnor heads the ministry of defence which has to be issued directions for the transfer of custody of persons.

But contrary to clear and unambiguous declarations of the court, the continuing detention with the military authorities of persons identified in the list provided to the Supreme Court amounts to unconstitutional and illegal acts.

The petition further reminded that Oct 23 judgment had also declared as unconstitutional Sections 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and had ordered that the civilians arrested in relation to May 9 and 10 events should be tried by criminal courts of competent jurisdiction established under the ordinary or special law.

This direction can only be complied with after the transfer of the custody of these civilians to the criminal courts of competent jurisdiction, the petition contended.
The petition reminded that multiple Intra-Court Appeals (ICA) against the Oct 23 order have been filed, but neither the number have been fixed to these ICAs by the registrar’s office at the moment nor they have been fixed for hearing.

Hence, the Oct 23 order is still in field and thus binding upon all parties, including the alleged contemnor. Moreover, it is also a settled law that until a stay is granted, mere filing of appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the order by the court, the petition argued.

It has been more than 43 days since the passing of the Oct 23 order, but relatives and friends of the persons identified in the list provided to the Supreme Court say the custody of these individuals have not been transferred to the criminal court of competent jurisdiction and they are still in illegal detention or custody of the military authorities.

SC office returns contempt plea against defence secretary​

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi]

SC urged to probe allegations of manipulation in Panamagate​

Islamabad Bar Association recommends inquiry be conducted by SC itself under its ample powers

Hasnaat Malik
February 04, 2024

The Islamabad Bar Association has recommended that the Supreme Court direct the federal government to appoint an inquiry commission to verify the allegations made by former Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui regarding the manipulation of judicial proceedings by agencies in the Panama case.

As one of the petitioners in the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case, the Islamabad Bar Association, through its counsel Salahuddin Ahmed, has submitted written arguments to the apex court.

In the submissions, Ahmed opposed the idea of referring the matter of the former IHC judge back to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for a fresh inquiry.

In the written submission, counsel Salahuddin Ahmed states, "This Court may direct the Federal Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge of this Court under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 2017 to inquire into the matter and ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the Respondent No.3’s allegations and make recommendations as to any action under law to be taken by appropriate bodies/forums against the Respondent No.3 or the Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 or any other person. This Court has, on numerous occasions, directed the formation of Commissions to ascertain facts/make recommendations/implement court directions."

The bar also recommended that any inquiry to be conducted in relation to the allegations of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui should be conducted by this court itself under its ample powers of Article 184 (3) read with Article 187 (1) of the Constitution and appropriate directions for further action may be passed thereafter.

"If it is considered undertaking the exercise directly before this Court is too time-consuming, this Court has explicit powers under Order 32 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 (read with Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 CPC) to issue commissions for investigation “for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute” and the commission’s report may thereafter be treated as evidence for the purpose of any further orders."

It is also submitted that in either case, the public interest requires that any preliminary determination of the veracity or otherwise of the allegations should not merely be for the purposes of establishing the historical record. Rather, to ensure deterrence in the future, the wrongdoer/s must be visited by appropriate proceedings and consequences.

“The solution does not lie, however, to send the matter for enquiry to the SJC – a forum that no longer enjoys any constitutional jurisdiction over the matter (and which, in any case, does not have the power to even give its opinion or pass any recommendations in relation to non-judicial officers alleged to be involved),” it added.

It is stated that if Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui's allegations of Lt. Gen. (R) Faiz Hameed and Brigadier (retd) Irfan Ramay are true, then they have prima facie, committed, "criminal contempt of court (obstructing or prejudicing the course of justice) within the meaning of section 2 (d), 3 and 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, offences under sections 162, 163, 166 and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code. (As per section 161 PPC, the gratification mentioned in section 162 and 163 PPC need not necessarily be pecuniary in nature.”

Moreover, the term “public servant” defined under section 21 PPC includes any commissioned military officer and every judge.), perjury in their statement before this Court punishable under sections 191, 193 and 199 PPC, violated their Oath of Office under Schedule III to the Constitution and their applicable service rules, regulations and discipline.

Similarly, if Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui's allegations are true Justice (R) Anwar Kasi, has prima facie committed criminal contempt of court within the meaning of section 2 (d), 3 and 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, offences under sections 162, 166 and 186 of the PPC, perjury in his statement before this court punishable under section 191, 193 and 199 PPC, violated his oath of office under Schedule III to the Constitution.

On the other hand, if ex-IHC judge allegations are false, he has prima facie committed judicial contempt of court by bringing the judiciary in disrepute and scandalising a judge within the meaning of section 2 (c) and 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, perjury in his statement before this court punishable under section 191, 193 and 199 PPC, defamed, the respondents No.4, 6 and 7 and liable to both civil proceedings under the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and criminal proceedings under section 499 and 500 PPC.

The counsel submitted that the petitioners admit the nature of allegations made by Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui are such that they should not simply be left hanging in the air.

"There is a clear public importance in determining their truth or otherwise. However, the matter does not end there.

"If Respondent No.3 was telling the truth; public interest demands appropriate action be taken against the military and judicial officers who violated their respective constitutional oaths besides violating the law.

Similarly, if he was not telling the truth and has falsely maligned not only individual judicial and military officers but the judiciary as a whole, he should face further consequences prescribed under law (and not merely removal from service)"

The counsel states that in order to allow court martial proceedings against retired army officers, there is a specific legislative provision allowing the same if proceedings are commenced within six months of retirement. To bring a similar change in relation to superior court judges and the jurisdiction of the SJC, an amendment to the constitution would be necessary, says the written submission.

 

[ghazi]

SC demands clarity on military commerce​

Notes that assets of SBCA inspectors must be investigated

JAHANZAIB ABBAS
February 15, 2024

The top court, emphasizing that all institutions of the country must stay within their constitutional boundaries, has sought assurance from the state’s top law officer that the armed forces will not engage in commercial activities.

“The military has started running marriage halls and other businesses. Make sure that it won't engage in business. The military should only focus on defense, not business,” Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJ) Qazi Faez Isa observed.

The CJ led a three-member bench also composed of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Mussarat Hilali, which on Wednesday resumed hearing a slew of petitions filed against illegal constructions in Karachi, the country’s most populous city.

“Everyone should stay within their boundaries. The military should do its job, and the courts should do their job,” he said while addressing Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan.

The AGP agreed with the chief justice, stating that it is indeed the principle that all people must do their assigned tasks. “If you have such instructions then you should give an assurance in this regard,” the CJ added.

Earlier, the lawyer for the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) told the court that some people made forged documents of a property owned by the ETPB and sold it to a builder. “Now a five-story building stands there,” he said.



Justice Mazhar inquired about the actions of the ETPB during the construction of the building on its land.

The CJ stated that illegal constructions in Karachi could not occur without the involvement of the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA).

The SBCA director-general appeared in court and informed the bench that there are a total of 1,400 employees in the SBCA, including 600 inspectors and 300 senior inspectors.

The CJ noted the need to investigate the personal assets of the SBCA inspectors and senior officers.

"It is also necessary to audit the assets of the sub-registrars in Karachi through the FBR [Federal Board of Revenue]," he added.

The court observed that illegal buildings are being constructed in Karachi, and residential plots are being converted into commercial areas with the knowledge of the authority.

It stated that the SBCA looks away when a builder constructs an illegal building but takes action and starts demolishing such structures as soon as people buy units in these projects.

It further noted that bulldozing illegal buildings where common people have invested their money affects the rights of these residents. The court ordered that during construction, the SBCA must erect boards displaying details of the approval for that construction.

"The SBCA cannot exploit the situation for its own benefit. The SBCA should not delay issuing a certificate of building completion," it added. The court later adjourned for an indefinite period.

 

[Old School]

What will happen if every government department start doing business ? Perhaps, the WAPDA should start running carwash business!

 

[ghazi]

CJP Isa says his role in elections was limited to directing president, CEC to decide poll date​

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa has said that his role in Feb 8 general elections was limited to merely directing President Arif Alvi and the chief election commissioner to decide an election date.

Speaking to reporters in Islamabad today, the chief justice said the Supreme Court judges did not give any order for the polls.

“Let me make this clear … and you all say this often. An argument was ensuing between the president and CEC so we [merely] told them to sit and decide,” he said.

“If someone else did not want them (elections) to take place, it’s another thing.”

CJP Isa also said that there were more than two attempts to postpone the elections when he was leaving for a holiday on December 16 but the Supreme Court took notice.

 

[ghazi]

KP CM hopeful Ali Amin Gandapur urges authorities to ‘rectify’ election results​

PTI leader Ali Amin Gandapur, who is the party’s candidate for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s chief minister slot, has requested the concerned authorities to rectify the election results.

Addressing a rally in Peshawar, he said the winners should be declared according to the Form 45s received from polling stations.

“Those candidates that are backed by Imran Khan should be declared as winners,” Gandapur said. “Only that government should be formed in this country who the people voted for.”

 

[ghazi]

PTI’s Hamid Khan calls for judicial inquiry into Rawalpindi commissioner’s claim regarding rigging​

PTI lawyer Hamid Khan has called for a nationwide judicial inquiry into the Rawalpindi commissioner’s revelations about the manipulation of election results.

Speaking to Geo News today, Khan said the commissioner’s revelations confirmed the rigging allegations allegedly carried out during the Feb 8 polls.

“Importance should be given to this,” he added. “Now that an important person from the government machinery is saying this, it provides confirmation.”

The PTI leader also hinted that he thinks the conscience of other officers would also force them to speak up after the Rawalpindi commissioner’s revelations.

 

[ghazi]

PTI’s Hamid Khan says Chatha’s statement should be given importance, everyone already knows elections were rigged​

PTI leader Hamid Khan has said that importance should be given to the statement given by the Rawalpindi Commissioner Liaquat Ali Chatha given that everyone already knows rigging has taken place.

“If someone from the government’s machinery [says so], that is a confirmation of it,” Khan said, adding that he thinks other people will come out accordingly.

“Such historic rigging, there were attempts to compare it to the 2018 elections, which also had some attempts of rigging, but there is no precedent for such rigging in our history,” he said.
He said it is “ridiculous” to assert that the commissioner does not have a role when it comes to the elections.

“The reason for it is the Deputy Commissioner, who is the DRO, so how come the DRO’s boss does not have a role,” he said.

 

[ghazi]

SC comes down hard on IG Islamabad in journalists’ harassment case​

Apex court rejects reports submitted by FIA and police; instructs to submit detailed reports again

Our Correspondent
March 11, 2024

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa expressed serious displeasure at Islamabad IG Akbar Nasir Khan on Monday as the apex court heard the matter concerning the Federal Investigation Agency's (FIA) harassment of journalists accused of an anti-judiciary campaign.

Irked over the police's failure to arrest individuals involved in the abduction of journalist Matiullah Jan in 2020, the CJP while addressing Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan said, "A crime was recorded on camera, but you could not trace those responsible for it?”

“Mr AGP, what kind of an IG is this? He should be removed,” CJP Isa asserted.

The chief justice asked the Islamabad IG how much more time was needed to arrest the abductors if four years were not enough. "Do you need four centuries?" he asked, warning the IG that the whole country had its eyes on his performance.

"It appears from your performance that you are playing the role of a facilitator. Shoot one journalist, torture, or pick up another," the CJP stated, criticising how cameras installed under the Safe City project also stop working during such incidents.

A lawyer in the courtroom then informed the SC that journalist Asad Toor was currently in jail with an FIR lodged against him.

The chief justice asked the FIA officer how the provisions under which Toor was booked were justified. “Does the FIA have any well-educated individual within its ranks?”, the CJP asked, suggesting the institution get someone to translate the law in Urdu otherwise.

“Did we [the judiciary] complain to you against any journalist? Did you issue notices to journalists in our names? Are you using us to get your work done?” the chief justice asked.

Journalist Asad Toor has been booked under some serious provisions, he said. “How do the provisions, including those about sensitive information, apply here?” CJP Isa further asked, taking the FIA officer to task over not even mentioning the anti-judiciary campaign in the FIR when the summons issued to Toor were regarding running a campaign against the judiciary. "You have used the judiciary to get your work done," the chief justice asserted.

Barrister Salahuddin informed the court that the JIT to probe the allegations against the journalists was formed before the registration of the cases. He prayed to the court to declare the JIT notification null and void.



The chief justice then inquired why an officer from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was part of the JIT, as the intelligence agency is not a law enforcement agency and it is also not the jurisdiction of the agency.

Salahuddin further argued that the FIA cannot take action against the journalists under PECA, as only Section 20 of the act deals with such allegations, however, the complainant in such cases should be a 'natural person'.

The AGP also agreed with the barrister's arguments and concurred that certain sections of PECA did not apply to the FIR.

The allegations levelled by former commissioner Rawalpindi Liaquat Ali Chattha on February 17 regarding the election commission and CJP colluding to rig February 8 general elections also came under discussion during the hearing.

CJP Isa stated that a commissioner accused him of rigging the elections and the statement was broadcast by all the TV channels without any verification. He added that it is common practice globally that a news piece is first verified before being aired. “No journalist asked the accuser what proof he had. Does this happen anywhere in the world?” the CJP asked. “However, should the judiciary have issued notices to all the TV channels?” he rhetorically asked.

He again warned the investigative agency to not “use” the judiciary. “A person threatened to kill me, but the SHO sat on the application for five days. I was then told that I will be informed of the progress on the matter after instructions are taken from the minister," the CJP said, further adding that a false report was submitted in the SC in the Matiullah Jan abduction case. “Are the number plates of vehicles in which the kidnappers come not visible?” CJP Isa asked.

Barrister Salahuddin then argued that the FIA initiated 115 inquiries and issued 65 notices. "Laws for defamation and contempt of court are in place and if the FIA takes over the rights of the judiciary, they will be misused."

Rejecting the reports submitted in the case by the FIA and the police, the apex court instructed both to submit detailed reports on the matter and adjourned the hearing till March 25.

Imran Riaz, Asad Toor's arrest

Renowned vloggers Imran Riaz Khan and Asad Toor were last month issued notices by the FIA's cyber crime wing to appear at their offices in Lahore and Islamabad respectively. The former was later arrested under anti-corruption and anti-terrorism charges. He was granted bail in the anti-terrorism case two days ago but remains behind bars in the corruption case.

A staunch critic of last year's coalition government, also the incumbent government, for ousting PTI founding chairman Imran Khan as premier, Imran was forcibly abducted last year and remained missing for at least four months.

Toor, on the other hand, was booked and arrested on charges of running an anti-judiciary campaign on social media under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016. He is still behind bars.

 

[ghazi]

[H2]SC urged to regulate high court chief justices' power[/H2]
The Newspaper's
April 20, 2024

LAHORE: The Supreme Court has been requested to regulate the discretionary powers of all provincial high courts' chief justices to curb the alleged misuse of authority in the judiciary.

"The outgoing chief justices often misuse their discretionary powers like royalty," says a petition filed by a lawyer in the wake of alleged dozens of decisions made by Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, the former chief justice of the Lahore High Court, during the last 30 days of his tenure.

The federal government, the Ministry of Law, and all provincial high courts through their registrars have been made respondents in the petition. Petitioner Mian Dawood says the former chief justice approved illegal increments for hundreds of employees of the LHC in the name of good performance.

He said from July 6, 2021, onwards, two illegal advance increments were given to the officials of the LHC. No chief justice has ever given such increments to the staff, including the registrar, for a period of over one year in judicial history, the lawyer claims. He pointed out that the former chief justice granted four-year paid educational leave to the reader (the court associate) of his court.

He said the reader's spouse, who is a senior civil judge, was also extended the same favor without any record of university enrollment or law department requisition. The petitioner alleged that over 50 notifications were issued in a day to end the penalties of as many employees of the LHC.
He argued that withdrawing any penalty under the discretionary powers is tantamount to disbanding the service tribunals established under the law.

He said that the former chief justice not only withdrew the penalties of two deputy registrars of the LHC but also granted them advance increments and promotions.

He said the former chief justice issued most of the notifications a day before his retirement on March 6. He said the discretionary powers should not be exercised by an individual (chief justice) rather administrative committees of the high courts be given the powers. He asked the apex court to regulate the discretionary powers of all high courts' chief justices and set aside the notifications issued by the former chief justice of the LHC by 'misusing' his discretion.

Published in Dawn, April 20th, 2024

 

[ghazi]

[H2]SC finds flaws in police investigation techniques[/H2]
Nasir Iqbal
April 27, 2024

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday emphasised the need for making concerted efforts on part of the police force to shift its investigation techniques by introducing and relying on forensic science and accordingly train specialised officers in this field.

"The cornerstone of criminal justice system is the effective functionality of the investigating agency and prosecution since a faulty investigative process will continuously dampen trust and confidence in the criminal justice system," observed Justice Ayesha A. Malik in a judgement she wrote.

Justice Malik was a member of a three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, which had taken up an appeal by Mohammad Ramzan against the July 4, 2013 Lahore High Court order acquitting Khizar Hayat of murder charges by not confirming the death sentence awarded to the accused.

On April 28, 2009, then Khushab additional sessions judge had awarded death sentence to Khizar Hayat for murdering Mohammad Hayat. The accused challenged his conviction and got acquittal by the high court.

Suggests reliance on forensic science to improve prosecution; upholds LHC order acquitting murder accused

"Time has come for the investigation agency to recognise inherent flaws and concerns in its methodology and it needs to work towards specialising its investigative functions by separating the same from other police duties," emphasised Justice Malik in her judgement.

She observed that the entire case of the prosecution relied on the ocular accounts which were fraught with material contradictions uncorroborated by available evidence. Moreover, she said, the presence of witnesses at the crime scene was highly doubtful and questionable.

The principle of fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution, Justice Malik emphasised, specifically mandated that the accused be equitably treated, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law.

"But in the case at hand, it was revealed that the entire prosecution evidence was marred by inherent improbabilities and material defects, aside from concerns about the credibility of the witnesses," the judgement regretted.

"It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt," it said, adding that the facts and circumstances of the present case clearly cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case, which had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which entitled him to the presumption of innocence by law.

"It is essential to emphasise the importance of forensic science in the criminal justice system," the judgement said, adding that forensic dealt with 'the application of scientific techniques to provide objective, circumstantial evidence'.

"Forensic is a science 'of interest to the legal system' whose objective is to ascertain what happened in the recent past. Forensic science means nothing more than the science which is used in the courts of law for the purposes of detection and prosecution of crime," the judgement recalled.

"This science plays a significant role in the criminal justice system by providing data that can be used to assess the degree of guilt of a suspect."

In the present case, the judgement said, the prosecution had not established the motive, adding that the high court's view was correct in which it stated that in the absence of any corroborating evidence, it did not appear to be a sound and reasonable motive as stated by the prosecution for the commission of the offence.

The apex court dismissed the present criminal petition with an observation that the findings rendered by the LHC did not suffer from any flaw or error.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2024

 

[ghazi]

The Supreme Court has set aside the Peshawar High Court's (PHC) decision to annul out-of-turn promotions in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) Police.

A three-member bench, led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah, also ordered the Provincial Services Tribunal to decide the matter within a month in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision and the province's 2005 law.

Individuals affected by the tribunal's decision are instructed to appeal within a month through authorized forums. During the hearing, the bench noted that the proper forum for filing appeals against government department decisions is the services tribunal, not the high court.

During the hearing, Justice Athar Minallah highlighted the sacrifices of the K-P police in the fight against terrorism, stating that they should be respected for their sacrifices.

Justice Minallah remarked, "The sacrifices of the K-P police officers are unparalleled; morale-boosting measures for the police are also necessary."

The lawyer representing the petitioners asserted that the case of Punjab and Sindh police is different from that of the K-P. In the K-P, the law allows out-of-turn promotions directly.

He said the provincial chief secretary revoked the law of 2005 under which out-of-turn promotions were permitted. "The law enacted by the provincial assembly cannot be withdrawn by the chief secretary; whether a law should be enacted or not is a decision of the assembly and the government," he said.



Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated that we are nullifying the decision of the dismissals and sending the matter back to the competent authority.

"The competent authority should make a fresh decision in light of the provincial law and the Supreme Court's rulings, and those affected by the decision should approach the competent forum."

Both parties agreed with the court's remarks, upon which the court referred the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision.

Utility bills case

Separately, the SC on Monday also suspended a Sindh High Court (SHC) decision upholding imposition of additional taxes on charity organizations, private hospitals, and clinics in electricity and gas bills.

Led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a three-member bench heard appeals from charity organizations and private hospitals and clinics against the decision to impose sales and other additional taxes on their electricity and gas bills.

During the hearing, representatives of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) requested for a delay and informed the court that a new tax policy could be implemented within a month.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the court would suspend the decision and schedule the hearing for the second week of June. He said in June the case would be heard on a daily basis, and no request for postponement would be accepted.

"In the event of a delay request, the decision of the high court would be reinstated," he said. A petitioner had challenged the SHC's August 23, 2023 verdict in the Supreme Court through Jahanzeb Awan Advocate.

 

[ghazi]

Muhammad Umair
@MohUmair87

میرے سامنے کوئی مداخلت نہیں ہوئی۔ جسٹس قاضی فائز عیسی
مداخلت آج بھی ہورہی۔ جسٹس اطہر من اللہ​

................
There was no interference in front of me.....Justice Qazi Faiz Isa

The interference is still happening today.....Justice Athar Minullah