CJP Archives - Dissent Today https://dissenttoday.net/tag/cjp/ Speaking Truth to Power Fri, 01 Dec 2023 16:11:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Court Can’t Force Dialogue Between Political Parties Over Elections, Says Chief Justice https://dissenttoday.net/news/court-cant-force-dialogue-between-political-parties-over-elections-says-chief-justice/ https://dissenttoday.net/news/court-cant-force-dialogue-between-political-parties-over-elections-says-chief-justice/#respond Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:12:20 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=3625 Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has ruled that the courts cannot force the government and opposition to hold negotiations as former Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) senator advocate Farooq H Naek told the court that only the Senate chairman can act as a facilitator between political parties since he represents a political forum. At […]

The post Court Can’t Force Dialogue Between Political Parties Over Elections, Says Chief Justice appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has ruled that the courts cannot force the government and opposition to hold negotiations as former Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) senator advocate Farooq H Naek told the court that only the Senate chairman can act as a facilitator between political parties since he represents a political forum.

At the previous hearing, the court had asked political parties to hold negotiations to end the impasse over the delay of elections. However, the ruling coalition criticised the top judiciary for “interfering in political matters” and refused to comply with the directives.

During today’s hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan told the court that the government and opposition had decided to hold a meeting on April 26, saying that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) Ayaz Sadiq and Khawaja Saad Rafique met PTI’s Asad Qaiser on April 25. But Asad Qaiser refused to hold talks over the matter, saying he was not authorised.

Justice Bandial asked in what capacity was Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjarani contacted to serve as a facilitator of the dialogue since he was neither the representative of the government nor the opposition.

“If the government was serious about negotiations, it would have made efforts itself,” said the CJP.

The top judge remarked that the court cannot force the government and opposition to hold negotiations, stressing that it only sought adherence to the Constitution and an end to the deadlock over the delay of elections.

During the hearing, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek told the court that the coalition parties had agreed to hold talks with PTI and Senate was the only forum where all political parties were present. He also made it clear that the Senate chairman was playing the role of a facilitator during the negotiations since he represents a political forum. He maintained that this is a political issue, which will only be decided by politicians.

The CJP had also called PTI’s Shah Mehmood Qureshi to the rostrum to present his party’s perspective during the hearing.

The post Court Can’t Force Dialogue Between Political Parties Over Elections, Says Chief Justice appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/news/court-cant-force-dialogue-between-political-parties-over-elections-says-chief-justice/feed/ 0 Supreme Court Denies Social Media Reports Claiming Judges Engaged In Physical Altercation https://dissenttoday.net/news/supreme-court-denies-social-media-reports-claiming-judges-engaged-in-physical-altercation/ https://dissenttoday.net/news/supreme-court-denies-social-media-reports-claiming-judges-engaged-in-physical-altercation/#respond Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:10:27 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=3228 The Supreme Court has denied social media reports claiming that top Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial and Justice Qazi Faez Isa engaged in a scuffle during their evening walk in the Judges’ Colony Park. Senior journalist Nasim Zehra had also shared the report, saying that senior judges Justice Qazi Faez […]

The post Supreme Court Denies Social Media Reports Claiming Judges Engaged In Physical Altercation appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> The Supreme Court has denied social media reports claiming that top Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial and Justice Qazi Faez Isa engaged in a scuffle during their evening walk in the Judges’ Colony Park.

Senior journalist Nasim Zehra had also shared the report, saying that senior judges Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had encountered the CJP and Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan during their evening walk in the Judges’ Colony Park. She said that both sides allegedly exchanged harsh words and were nearly involved in a physical altercation.

However, the Supreme Court issued a statement denying the “false news”.

Refuting the report in “strongest terms”, the statement said, “it is false, mischievous, and malicious”.

It also added that false reporting regarding the judges of the senior court is a “serious violation of law”.

&;

Amid simmering tensions between top Supreme Court judges over the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s discretionary powers, it was also reported that senior judges exchanged harsh words with each other after the Judicial Commission of Pakistan meeting, chaired by the chief justice.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah were called into the CJP’s chamber after a JCP meeting wherein nomination of Justice Musarrat Hilali as the chief justice of the Peshawar High Court was approved.

Senior Supreme Court judges, including Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, have openly expressed disagreement with the CJP over his discretionary powers on bench constitution, and suo motu notices among others.

According to Express Tribune, after CJP Bandial called these judges to his chamber, both sides traded barbs. A retired judge also intervened but his attempts to make reconciliation failed.

The post Supreme Court Denies Social Media Reports Claiming Judges Engaged In Physical Altercation appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/news/supreme-court-denies-social-media-reports-claiming-judges-engaged-in-physical-altercation/feed/ 0 Top Supreme Court Judges Trade Barbs After JCP Meeting: Report https://dissenttoday.net/news/top-supreme-court-judges-trade-barbs-after-jcp-meeting-report/ https://dissenttoday.net/news/top-supreme-court-judges-trade-barbs-after-jcp-meeting-report/#respond Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:32:35 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=3216 Amid simmering tensions between top Supreme Court judges over Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial’s discretionary powers, senior judges reportedly exchanged harsh words with each other after the Judicial Commission of Pakistan meeting, chaired by the chief justice. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali […]

The post Top Supreme Court Judges Trade Barbs After JCP Meeting: Report appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> Amid simmering tensions between top Supreme Court judges over Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial’s discretionary powers, senior judges reportedly exchanged harsh words with each other after the Judicial Commission of Pakistan meeting, chaired by the chief justice.

Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah were called into the CJP’s chamber after a JCP meeting wherein nomination of Justice Musarrat Hilali as the chief justice of the Peshawar High Court was approved.

Senior Supreme Court judges, including Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, have openly expressed disagreement with the CJP over his discretionary powers on bench constitution, and suo motu notices among others.

According to Express Tribune, after CJP Bandial called these judges to his chamber, both sides traded barbs. A retired judge also intervened but his attempts to make reconciliation failed.

Meanwhile, senior journalist Nasim Zehra also shared that the CJP and senior judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa also exchanged harsh words and nearly engaged in a physical fight when they encountered each other in a park.

The post Top Supreme Court Judges Trade Barbs After JCP Meeting: Report appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/news/top-supreme-court-judges-trade-barbs-after-jcp-meeting-report/feed/ 0 It’s Time For Chief Justice Bandial To Step Down https://dissenttoday.net/opinion/its-time-for-chief-justice-bandial-to-step-down/ https://dissenttoday.net/opinion/its-time-for-chief-justice-bandial-to-step-down/#respond Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:05:22 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=3211 It is now Pakistan’s parliament versus eight Supreme Court (SC) judges in the worst and most bitter confrontation between the two branches of the government the country has ever experienced. Neither is willing to blink in a high-stake power struggle which may lead to a complete breakdown and could even see Pakistan return to military […]

The post It’s Time For Chief Justice Bandial To Step Down appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> It is now Pakistan’s parliament versus eight Supreme Court (SC) judges in the worst and most bitter confrontation between the two branches of the government the country has ever experienced. Neither is willing to blink in a high-stake power struggle which may lead to a complete breakdown and could even see Pakistan return to military rule in some form.

At the centre of this conflict is Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial. In an unprecedented and controversial move, the Supreme Court’s eight judges on Thursday barred the government from implementing a bill seeking to curtail the chief justice of Pakistan’s powers once it becomes a law. Earlier on Thursday, leaders of the ruling coalition opposed the formation of the bench, calling the move “premature” and calling for the bench’s dissolution in light of the ongoing legislative process.

In a tit-for-tat move, the SC bench rushed to block a bill that has not yet become law. This SC order is in violation of a previous SC decision of 1989 when an 11-member bench of the apex court had held in Federation of Pakistan vs Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 61) that, “It is a well-settled principle of constitutional interpretation that until a law is finally held to be ultra vires for any reason, it should have its normal operation.”

Pakistan’s parliament on Thursday ruled against providing funds for provincial assemblies’ snap polls ordered by the Supreme Court, in a further escalation of the conflict between the CJ and government amid months of political and economic turmoil, with the country nearing default. The CJ had already summoned government officials on Friday to seek their response on the funds for the provincial assembly polls, warning that non-compliance would have consequences. It is clear that ruling parties want to avoid the elections because they fear Imran Khan will win. 

Thursday’s developments followed the SC’s April 4 order to hold elections for the dissolved Punjab Assembly on May 14. The fact that the SC didn’t order a date to hold elections for the KP assembly has raised eyebrows with some observers questioning why special attention is being given to the largest province – the centre of the power struggle – if it is just a constitutional or legal matter and no order was passed for the KP assembly.

The SC had directed the federal government to release the election funds to the ECP by April 10 for elections to both assemblies. The court’s verdict followed a petition filed by the PTI, which had challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to delay the Punjab polls from April 30 to October 8 after the government refused to give funds to conduct the exercise citing the economic crisis. The PTI in January decided to dissolve the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) provincial assemblies it controlled in a bid to force early national elections. 

Pakistan faces an existential crisis and Chief Justice Bandial has become the centre of the crisis. Therefore, if Pakistan is to have any hope of coming out of this impasse, the first step will have to be his resignation to end this confrontation.

The chief justice’s conduct has come under serious criticism by other senior judges of the court but it seems to have strengthened his resolve to run his “one-man show” as described by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail in their judgment of March 1, 2023. The two judges had said, “The immediate danger of the imperial Supreme Court, writes Professor Lemley, is that it will damage the constitutional system by usurping the power that doesn’t belong to it; but the longer-term danger may be the opposite. The Court, by turning it in the minds of the public into just another political institution, may ultimately undermine its legitimacy and credibility of its judgments. We must ensure that our Supreme Court does not assume the role of an imperial Supreme Court with its judicial decisions restricting the power of the Parliament, the Government and the provincial High Courts.”

The division among the Supreme Court judges is yet another sign of Pakistan’s failure as a state. Judiciary was perhaps never independent as historically, it acted as an appendage of the establishment, but kept a façade of respectability. Cracks within the SC are perhaps a reflection of divisions within the establishment. Partisan observers can get excited but the fact is that all parties have violated the Constitution at one point or another. The military establishment and the political parties have not always played by the book throughout Pakistan’s turbulent history. However, the SC judges kept at least a façade of proprietary and neutrality although they were involved in the judicial murder of an elected prime minister – Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – and in the removal of other elected prime ministers through clandestine machinations of the deep state. 

It is not the first time a bench under the chief justice has tried to usurp a power it does not have under the Constitution. The court has exercised the power to take suo motu notice in a blatant violation of the constitution through politically motivated judicial activism, particularly during the last 16 years. The suo motu power, as practised by the court, has no basis in the text of the Constitution. The court didn’t even mention this power when framing the Supreme Court Rules in 1980. 

The conflict is rooted in the political tug-of-war between the parties of the ruling coalition and Imran Khan who has been locked in a no holds barred power struggle with his opposition. He is 70 and he knows this is his last chance to get back into power. He is gambling on his popular support to go to any extent hoping that the military’s top brass will eventually support him. However, he has become a deeply polarising figure and may have made governing Pakistan an almost impossible task. The military has mostly exercised restraint. Going by Pakistan’s history, any other leader would have been in jail by now.

The risk of complete collapse has increased with the open division among the judges of the Supreme Court. Unless Imran Khan makes peace with the military establishment, the army generals may be forced to take some extra-constitutional steps, although they would want to avoid it due to Pakistan’s dire economic situation. However, all bets will be off if Pakistan defaults, a scenario which appears to be quite likely as an agreement with the IMF is unlikely to be concluded anytime soon.

The standoff between the parliament and the Supreme Court is more than a constitutional crisis. The government doesn’t have a clear mandate but its grievances – during the recent history – against the military and the judiciary go back to July 2017 when the former army chief General (retired) Qamar Javed Bajwa and a five-member supreme court bench allegedly acted in concert to remove former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on flimsy charges that had little to do with his alleged corruption. Even Imran Khan recently held Genera Bajwa responsible for Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification. 

Given the dark past of Pakistan’s superior courts who willingly condoned various unconstitutional and illegal actions of military rulers, the moral authority of the country’s judiciary is weak, to say the least. There is little doubt that Imran Khan was brought into power through conspiracies engineered by General Bajwa, with the judiciary’s help. Bajwa was happy to see Imran removed from office after the gulf between the two became too wide following the row between the two over the appointment of the chief of the country’s premier intelligence agency, the ISI.   The PDM government has been working closely with the military establishment and has no intention to hold elections this year under one pretext or the other. Hence, it is preposterous for any of the major actors to claim a high moral ground in the present conflict.

Once Imran Khan was voted out through a no-confidence motion in April 2022, the ruling coalition of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) and the Pakistan Peoples Party moved to oust the PTI’s Punjab government. Following a vote of no-confidence, PMLN’s Hamza Shahbaz was elected as the chief minister with the help of the votes of 24 PTI dissident legislators. 

Following a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the constitution, a five-member SC bench, headed by the Chief Justice, ruled by a majority of 3 to 2, that dissident members’ votes should not be counted. The dissenting judges Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel disagreed with the verdict. In the minority opinion, they stated that “any further interpretation of Article 63-A, in our view, would amount to re-writing or reading into the Constitution and will also affect the other provisions of Constitution, which has not even been asked by the president”.

However, even in the context of the judiciary’s dark history, the chief justice’s conduct has been highly unbecoming, particularly the way he formed benches by repeatedly picking his favourites – ignoring senior judges — by abusing the unconstitutional power of suo motu notices, and worst by rewriting the constitution in the case of presidential reference on Article 63(A).  

In short, the state of Pakistan is in a deep mess and faces an existential crisis and the CJ has become the centre of the crisis. In the process, he has greatly damaged his credibility and that of his institution. Now no matter what he does is unlikely to be respected by not just the ruling coalition but also by his fellow judges and members of the bar as well as a large segment of the population.

Therefore, if Pakistan is to have any hope of coming out of this impasse, the first step will have to be his resignation to end this confrontation, because as they say, Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. The phrase means that those holding important public positions should avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. Their behaviour must always be “above suspicion”. 

At the same time, the government should invite and hold talks with the PTI to set a date for elections because a political solution through dialogue is the only way out of the crisis. 

The post It’s Time For Chief Justice Bandial To Step Down appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/opinion/its-time-for-chief-justice-bandial-to-step-down/feed/ 0 CJP Bandial Accused Of ‘Neglecting’ Provincial Judiciary Over Delay In PHC CJ’s Appointment https://dissenttoday.net/news/cjp-bandial-accused-of-neglecting-provincial-judiciary-over-delay-in-phc-cjs-appointment/ https://dissenttoday.net/news/cjp-bandial-accused-of-neglecting-provincial-judiciary-over-delay-in-phc-cjs-appointment/#respond Fri, 31 Mar 2023 08:26:17 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=2753 Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial has been accused of neglecting the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa judiciary, as the top judge has not summoned the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s meeting to finalise the nomination of the chief justice of Peshawar High Court, despite approval of Justice Musarrat Hilali’s appointment to the post. Hilali will be the […]

The post CJP Bandial Accused Of ‘Neglecting’ Provincial Judiciary Over Delay In PHC CJ’s Appointment appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> Chief Justice of Pakistan Umer Ata Bandial has been accused of neglecting the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa judiciary, as the top judge has not summoned the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s meeting to finalise the nomination of the chief justice of Peshawar High Court, despite approval of Justice Musarrat Hilali’s appointment to the post. Hilali will be the first woman Chief Justice of the high court.

On Wednesday, President Dr Arif Alvi approved the appointment of Justice Musarrat Hilali as the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC). Justice Hilali will act as the PHC chief justice from April 1 till the appointment of a regular chief justice on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). However, the CJP has yet to summon a JCP meeting over the matter.

KP Bar Council’s nominated Member of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan Ahmad Farooq Khattak has written a letter to the CJP and demanded that a JCP meeting is convened immediately to consider the nomination of the new PHC CJ.

In the letter, Khattak stated two senior judges of the high court were set to retire in March, including PHC Chief Justice Qaiser Rashid, and justice Roohul Amin Khan. Following this, Justice Musarrat Hilali was to be appointed as PHC CJ on acting charge basis. However, he regretted that the meeting for the appointment of the permanent PHC CJ is yet to be summoned by the CJP.

Khattak termed this a “serious neglect” towards the provincial judiciary.

He added that this was not an isolated incident as the same “injustice is meted out” to the judges of the PHC when it comes to their elevation to the Supreme Court. Khattak said this was not the first time these concerns were being raised.

Khattak urged the CJP to convene the meeting for the appointment of the permanent chief justice of the PHC as per the law.

The post CJP Bandial Accused Of ‘Neglecting’ Provincial Judiciary Over Delay In PHC CJ’s Appointment appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/news/cjp-bandial-accused-of-neglecting-provincial-judiciary-over-delay-in-phc-cjs-appointment/feed/ 0 MNA Mohsin Dawar’s Amendment to SC Suo Motu Bill Will Give Former PMs Nawaz, Gilani Right To Appeal https://dissenttoday.net/news/mna-mohsin-dawars-amendment-to-sc-suo-motu-bill-will-give-former-pms-nawaz-gilani-right-to-appeal/ https://dissenttoday.net/news/mna-mohsin-dawars-amendment-to-sc-suo-motu-bill-will-give-former-pms-nawaz-gilani-right-to-appeal/#respond Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:08:21 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=2710 North Waziristan Member National Assembly Mohsin Dawar’s amendment to the unanimously-passed National Assembly bill limiting the chief justice of Pakistan’s power to take a suo motu notice will provide the right to appeal to those convicted under such cases, including former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Yusuf Raza Gilani. While presenting the amendment, Dawar said […]

The post MNA Mohsin Dawar’s Amendment to SC Suo Motu Bill Will Give Former PMs Nawaz, Gilani Right To Appeal appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> North Waziristan Member National Assembly Mohsin Dawar’s amendment to the unanimously-passed National Assembly bill limiting the chief justice of Pakistan’s power to take a suo motu notice will provide the right to appeal to those convicted under such cases, including former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Yusuf Raza Gilani.

While presenting the amendment, Dawar said this would give the affectees of Karachi’s Nasla Tower the right to appeal.

On suo motu notice taken under Article 184 (3) of the constitution in 2021, the Supreme Court had ordered the demolition of the Nasla Tower situated on the main Shahrah-e-Faisal in Karachi with at least 43 apartments that were occupied by residents who were living there for several years.

If the bill is passed today by Senate and approved by the president, it will also pave the way for many political leaders to contest verdicts in the cases against them under Article 184 (3) of the constitution. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who was disqualified under Article 62(F) of the Constitution in 2017, former prime minister belonging to Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Yusuf Raza Gilani, estranged Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jehangir Khan Tareen could file an appeal against their disqualification verdicts “within 30 days of the commencement of this Act”.

The NA passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, that limits the discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) to take suo motu notice under Article 184(3) of the Constitution yesterday.

PML-N MNA Bashir Mehmood Virk presented the bill while North Waziristan MNA Mohsin Dawar presented the amendment to the bill.

Social media users lauded the bill.

Legal analyst Reema Omer said the changes proposed by the bill are “particularly significant”.

She also dismissed the claims that the bill is an “attack on the independence of the judiciary”.

Reema Omer elaborated on the three important aspects of the bill.

She said according to the bill a committee comprising the CJP and two senior-most judges of the SC will constitute benches to hear all matters before the Supreme Court and the committee will make decisions by majority.

The same committee will also decide whether SC should exercise its original jurisdiction under Art 184(3) and such cases will be heard by a bench comprising a minimum of three judges.

Currently, the CJP alone has discretionary powers over all such matters.
“Currently, there is no right to appeal such SC judgments – there is only an option to apply for a review on limited and narrow grounds before the same bench. The bill proposes an appeal before a larger bench of the SC than the bench that originally decided the case,” she added.

Another social media user said that all bars have been demanding these much-needed amendments for at least a decade now.

The post MNA Mohsin Dawar’s Amendment to SC Suo Motu Bill Will Give Former PMs Nawaz, Gilani Right To Appeal appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/news/mna-mohsin-dawars-amendment-to-sc-suo-motu-bill-will-give-former-pms-nawaz-gilani-right-to-appeal/feed/ 0 ‘One Man Show’: Revolt In Pakistan’s Judiciary As Chief Justice’s Discretionary Powers Challenged https://dissenttoday.net/news/one-man-show-revolt-in-pakistans-judiciary-as-chief-justices-discretionary-powers-challenged/ https://dissenttoday.net/news/one-man-show-revolt-in-pakistans-judiciary-as-chief-justices-discretionary-powers-challenged/#respond Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:48:33 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=2628 Legal analysts have reacted to remarks made by two Supreme Court Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail wherein they called for revisiting the “one-man show” powers enjoyed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, saying the top judge’s “unfettered discretionary powers” should be a cause of concern for every citizen. The two […]

The post ‘One Man Show’: Revolt In Pakistan’s Judiciary As Chief Justice’s Discretionary Powers Challenged appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> Legal analysts have reacted to remarks made by two Supreme Court Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail wherein they called for revisiting the “one-man show” powers enjoyed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, saying the top judge’s “unfettered discretionary powers” should be a cause of concern for every citizen.

The two judges of the apex court issued these remarks in relation to the judgement handed down by the CJP in the March 1 suo motu regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, and deplored the “unbridled powers” exercised by the top judge.

Currently, the CJP has complete authority over the formation of benches, case allocation/appointments, and suo motu notices.

Legal analysts reacted to these remarks.

Reema Omer:

Legal analyst Reema Omer shared the screenshot of the judges’ notes on her Twitter handle and said “CJ’s unfettered discretionary powers” should be a cause of concern for every citizen of Pakistan.


It’s “eroding judicial independence from within and impeding on our fundamental rights, including fair trial”, she added.


She also criticised those who condemned the judges for openly passing dissenting remarks on the CJP and questioned if they would have Supreme Court appear “united” or the one that “functions democratically, transparently, and independently?”

Reema Omer added that independence of the judiciary is one of the foundations of the constitution and said that it is unfortunate that certain segments of the legal profession are deeming these remarks a “conspiracy”.


“Constitution is clear: election must be held within 90 days of the dissolution of provincial assemblies. Constitution is also clear: independence of the judiciary must be ensured (which includes freedom from undue interference from within). Both are important. And they are not mutually exclusive,” she said.

Abdul Moiz Jaffery:

Legal analyst Abdul Moiz Jaffery said that this might be the “final push for the full court we really needed”.

Political and legal analysts have continuously called for a full court to hear the case regarding elections of provincial assemblies, instead of a larger bench constituted by the CJP.


Osama Siddique:
Legal commentator Osama Siddique said that describing the “current abuse of this (chief justice of Pakistan) position” as a “one-man show” is a “fitting indictment of the CJP concerned”.


He said many political and legal commentators have been pointing out the same since top judge Umar Ata Bandial resumed the charge.
“His manner of administrating the courts leaves lots to be desired,” he added.


The CJP has been criticised over issues involving “earlier jurisprudence on Article 63–A, exclusion of senior judges from benches, inaction in wake of serious corruption allegations on a certain judge, shambolic handling of the judicial commission, alacrity in extending relief to a certain political party and frequent political statements” he added and said these issues have “eroded the credibility of the Supreme Court”.

The post ‘One Man Show’: Revolt In Pakistan’s Judiciary As Chief Justice’s Discretionary Powers Challenged appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/news/one-man-show-revolt-in-pakistans-judiciary-as-chief-justices-discretionary-powers-challenged/feed/ 0 Punjab-KP Election Case Sparks Debate On CJP’s Discretionary Powers Over Bench Constitutions, Suo Motu Notices   https://dissenttoday.net/featured/punjab-kp-election-case-sparks-debate-on-cjps-discretionary-powers-over-bench-constitutions-suo-motu-notices/ https://dissenttoday.net/featured/punjab-kp-election-case-sparks-debate-on-cjps-discretionary-powers-over-bench-constitutions-suo-motu-notices/#respond Wed, 01 Mar 2023 07:46:32 +0000 https://dissenttoday.net/?p=1991 As a five-member Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesday announced that the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are to be held in 90 days in a suo motu case, the debate on discretionary powers of the CJP has renewed amid dissociation of judges from the […]

The post Punjab-KP Election Case Sparks Debate On CJP’s Discretionary Powers Over Bench Constitutions, Suo Motu Notices   appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> As a five-member Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesday announced that the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are to be held in 90 days in a suo motu case, the debate on discretionary powers of the CJP has renewed amid dissociation of judges from the bench earlier constituted by the CJP for the case.

The verdict was announced today by the bench comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

However, the chief justice had earlier formed a nine-member bench, headed by him and included Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Athar Minallah.

Justices Ijazul Ahsan and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi recused themselves from hearing the case amid opposition from the coalition government.

Meanwhile, Justice Afridi and Justice Minallah disassociated themselves from the proceedings as they expressed their opinion on the maintainability of the petitions on the matter.

Moreover, Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail did not distance themselves from the bench but added dissenting additional notes along with Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Yahya Afridi.

In the note, Justice Mandokhel has raised questions over suo motu notice of the case, saying the matter should be resolved within the parliament.

Justice Mansoor Ali Khan questioned why senior judges were not included in the bench.

Justice Afridi in his additional note also raised questions about the maintainability of petitions.

Justices Afridi and Mandokhel also draw attention to an alleged audio leak wherein it is suggested that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is able to get favourable benches to hear their cases and questioned why was there no institutional response to the audio leaks.

Justice Minallah asked for a full court to hear the case and disassociated himself from hearing the case.

In another case proceeding, Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa refused to hear the scheduled cases after the benches were reshuffled.

Justice Isa also said the benches should not be changed arbitrarily and also questioned whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) has absolute discretion in the constitution of benches and fixing of cases.

The post Punjab-KP Election Case Sparks Debate On CJP’s Discretionary Powers Over Bench Constitutions, Suo Motu Notices   appeared first on Dissent Today.

]]> https://dissenttoday.net/featured/punjab-kp-election-case-sparks-debate-on-cjps-discretionary-powers-over-bench-constitutions-suo-motu-notices/feed/ 0