Meanwhile, Pakistan Muslim League-N’s (PML-N) lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed also informed the court that they have also filed a similar plea seeking the formation of a full court. During the hearing, the bench questioned the motives behind the government’s demand of a full court. The top judge remarked that the court had to decide for future, the circumstances in which the bench can order the constitution of a full court.
“The current issue was not a case of constitutional amendment,” CJP Bandial observed. He directed the parties to present examples of cases other than presidential references on Justice Faez Isa and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, if any. The case cannot be concluded today as it requires further assistance and arguments from other parties, the top judge remarked while adjourning the hearing for three weeks. He said that some members of the bench were going out of city therefore the hearing was being adjourned for this long.
The bench also directed the lawyers to tell if they had confidence in the current bench or not, and if this was the case then this matter should be sorted first before. Earlier, when the AGP started his arguments, CJP Bandial inquired if he had submitted the record of the National Assembly’s proceedings. Regarding the query, the AGP said that they expected the records to be received by tomorrow (Tuesday). He informed the court that they had contacted the National Assembly Speaker’s office in this regard.
AGP Awan argued that the court had declared that the basic structure of the Constitution was present. The judicial reform law involves the matter of the formation of benches and appeals, he said. The bill also gives the right to change the lawyer, he added. He further stated that the matters decided in the bill were of administrative nature and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedures) Act, 2023, could be amended by a full court. He said that cases related to the independence of the judiciary and rules should also be heard by a full court.
Moreover, the law will also apply directly to judges who are not hearing the case. At this, Justice Ahsan remarked that the question was not about the amendments, but whether there were such legislative powers or not. Meanwhile, Justice Naqvi inquired if there had been any legislation like the bill in question in the past. At this, the AGP maintained that the president’s permission was required to make the rules until 1973.
Responding to this, Justice Naqvi objected that how can such a legislation be done in the presence of Article 191 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, Justice Mazhar remarked that the government’s plea had stated that this case was the “first case of its kind”.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday Islamic countries should form an alliance against what…
A rare snake species known as the blunt-nosed viper and other reptiles, especially the geico…
As Pakistan prepares to celebrate the birthday of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on September…
PCB Director High-Performance, Tournament Director Champions One Day Cup Nadeem Khan has said that the…
The Health experts addressing a symposium on Saturday stressed lifestyle changes to prevent diabetes which…
Pakistan's combined contingent is all set to participate in the 5th World Nomad Games, scheduled…
Leave a Comment