Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a petition seeking to impose a ban on candidates contesting elections from multiple constituencies, with the bench citing constitutional limitations. The petition, filed by a legal representative, argued that contesting elections from more than one constituency violated the Constitution and legal principles. However, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked, “We can annul laws, but we cannot make new ones.” Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar added, “If you are challenging the Elections Act, that’s a separate matter.” The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the principle of “one person, one vote” should apply to elections, and that allowing candidates to contest multiple constituencies undermined this basic democratic concept. He also criticised the practice of candidates running for seats in areas where they do not even have a registered vote. Justice Ameenuddin Khan countered, stating, “If the law allowed a candidate to not vote for themselves, your argument would hold.” Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the law requires the proposer and seconder to be from the same constituency, and since the legislature has allowed this, you cannot question the intent of the legislature. “You cannot question the intent of the legislature,” he added. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that it would be better for the petitioner to persuade the political leadership. The constitutional bench upheld the objections raised by the Registrar’s office and dismissed the petition. Constitutional bench denies taking suo-motu notice on Quetta child abduction Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has denied taking suo-motu notice on the abduction of a child in Quetta. A five-member bench, led by Justice Ameenuddin Khan, heard the case regarding the child’s abduction in Quetta. During the proceedings, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan informed the court about a confidential progress report related to the abduction. He requested the bench to review the report in chambers and discussed the formation of a joint investigation team (JIT) for the child’s recovery. Justice Jamal Mandokhail clarified that the case is already under consideration and rejected any notion that the Constitutional Bench had taken suo-motu notice of the incident. The bench, after reviewing the report in chambers, resumed the hearing. A lawyer representing the Balochistan government then requested the court to intervene and end the ongoing sit-in in Quetta. However, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that resolving such matters was the responsibility of the local administration and that the federal government could provide support if needed. The child’s father appeared in court, pleading for his child’s safe return. Justice Justice Jamal Mandokhail reassured the father, stating that full cooperation would be extended from all sides and emphasized that the police chief had provided detailed information in chambers. He also warned that certain details could not be disclosed to avoid compromising the investigation. Justice Mandokhail urged the media to refrain from excessive coverage, as it could endanger the child’s life. Justice Ameenuddin Khan concluded by stressing that the case had not yet been resolved in the Supreme Court and that increasing pressure could put the child’s life at risk. Earlier, it emerged that the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court took suo-motu notice of the missing child in Quetta and summoned all provincial Inspectors General of Police (IGs) in the case. During the hearing, the bench had summoned all IGPs and Home Secretaries from all provinces for the next hearing. Justice Jamal Mandokhail had expressed concern over the failure to recover the missing child in Quetta, stating that despite the city being paralyzed by protests for six days, the government had seemed indifferent. He pointed out that even schoolchildren in Quetta had taken to the streets in protest. Justice Musarrat Hilali had raised questions about the report submitted by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which claimed zero cases of sex trafficking. She questioned how such a claim could be made when the issue remained rampant. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar had inquired whether any provincial body or commission was working on the issue of missing children, particularly in light of the 18th Amendment, which granted more powers to the provinces. Justice Mandokhail had noted that the entire province of Balochistan had been shut down due to the abduction, but the government had seemed unconcerned. He further criticized the lack of preparation by government lawyers on this crucial issue. The bench had also been informed that a committee formed by the Supreme Court on child abductions had not taken any concrete actions since its establishment in 2018. The petitioner had claimed that the committee had never actually been constituted. In response, the Additional Advocate General of Balochistan had promised to submit a report on the matter. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar had observed that the court did not need mere reports but required concrete actions to address child abductions. Justice Mandokhail had called for a broader inquiry into the situation, questioning why the authorities were not taking more substantial measures to curb child abductions. The bench had also scrutinized the role of law enforcement agencies, with Justice Mandokhail questioning the role of the Frontier Corps (FC) in social welfare efforts despite the large expenditures allocated to them. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi had pointed out that children in Karachi were seen begging at traffic signals, raising further concerns about child welfare. Justice Ameenuddin Khan had also expressed his dismay at the international issue of Pakistani beggars being sent abroad, calling it an embarrassment for the country.