Tag: CJP Bandial

  • Judges mein bol chaal khatam, ghar se iftariyaan waapis kardi, claims journalist

    Senior court reporter Hasnaat Malik has claimed that the differences between the Supreme Court (SC) judges have reached the point of no return.

    Speaking to Journalist Absa Komal on Dawn News programme ‘News Eye’, the journalist said, “Bol chaal khatam ho gai hai, iftariyaan bheji judges ne aik dosry ke ghar woh wapis kardi gai “(They aren’t on talking terms, the judges even returned iftaris which they sent to each other’s homes).

    Malik also revealed that arguments have also taken place in person between the senior judges and that consensus is impossible at the moment.

    Hasnaat Malik said that seven judges are on one side while the other eight are on another, pointing out that the fight is about absolute power given to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial as one side wants to regulate his authority.

    He said that as of yet CJP has unquestionable power in the SC and he can do whatever he wants in cases or matters related to benches.

    It is pertinent to mention that questions related to the supreme power given to CJP Bandial were raised when election suo moto was taken by him despite the opposition by many senior judges including the next CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Since then it has been widely speculated that judges aren’t happy with CJP Bandial.

  • Parliament rejects the verdict of Supreme Court

    The National Assembly (NA) has passed a resolution rejecting the verdict of the three-member bench of the Supreme Court about holding polls in Punjab on May 14.

    The resolution was moved by Balochistan Awami Party lawmaker Khalid Magsi and approved by a majority of the lawmakers. 

    Previously, the govt demanded a full bench for the hearing of the suo moto case, however, many judges recused themselves from the hearings.

    Earlier, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Supremo Nawaz Sharif urged the parliament to file a reference of misconduct against Chief Justice Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar who gave the verdict.

  • Ap ko tab jazbaati hona chahiye tha jab Nawaz Sharif ko nikala gaya, Maryam tells Chief Justice

    Ap ko tab jazbaati hona chahiye tha jab Nawaz Sharif ko nikala gaya, Maryam tells Chief Justice

    Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Senior Vice President Maryam Nawaz, speaking at a lawyers’ convention, criticised Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial after the Supreme Court (SC) verdict of holding of Punjab polls on May 14.

    “I saw tickers on TV attributed to the CJP, that said that the chief justice got emotional during the hearing.”

    “He should have felt emotional when an elected prime minister [Nawaz Sharif] was ousted on the basis of an expired Iqama (work permit),” she said about the controversial decision that ousted her father from power.

    “An election won by Nawaz was handed over to Imran … why didn’t you get emotional then? Why didn’t you get emotional when your brother [judge] Justice Qazi Faez Isa was suffering?” Maryam asked.

    Regarding the verdict which was given by the three-member bench, she asked, “How can the CJP expect us to accept a decision that even his brother judges are not accepting it? He discluded the judges who had raised legal reservations and instead brought those judges who favoured him.”

    She also pointed out CJ’s remarks about parliamentarians. Bandial had said: “Today when you go to parliament, you find people addressing the parliament who were till yesterday in captivity, imprisoned, declared traitors. They are now talking over there, and being respected because they are representatives of the people.”

    “Instead of taunting Shehbaz Sharif and the entire government for going to jail, the CJP could have mentioned that those who went to jail were imprisoned due to fake cases,” she stated, recalling the number of cases registered against PML-N leaders and the times they appeared before courts.

    “Our leaders like Rana Sanaullah remained in jail for six months and they had a smile on their faces when they were freed. But Imran and his men are getting bail within two hours,” she criticised.

    She also gave an example of herself being in Adiala Jail for months.

    Addressing the CJP again, Maryam said: “You encouraged the man who violated the Constitution and now he is causing anarchy in the country.”

    She claimed that Imran and “his facilitators” have a plan in store, which Maryam claimed was to be executed by September before the new CJP takes charge.

    Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also criticised Bandial’s remarks and said that it is a matter of pride for him that he has been released by the high court on merit in false and fabricated cases.

    “It is our right under the Constitution to express our views in the parliament,” he said

    Earlier, supremo Nawaz Sharif urged the parliament to file a reference of misconduct against Chief Justice Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar who decided on the Punjab election date.

    Calling the verdict a reflection of a “one-man show” in the judiciary, Nawaz argued that one individual should not be allowed to hold multiple functions, such as the prime minister, defence minister, Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), and above all, parliament.

  • Supreme Court reserves decision over postponement of Punjab and KP elections

    The Supreme Court has reserved its decision over Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) elections and will announce the decision tomorrow (Tuesday).

    The hearing of the case has been going on for the past week with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) demanding immediate elections.

    On February 22, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial took a suo motu notice of the delay in elections, forming a larger bench to hear the case but later many top judges excused themselves from the hearing.

    Today, the hearing was headed by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Bandial.

    Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) lawyers Irfan Qadir and Sajeel Swati, PTI lawyer Ali Zafar, and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) counsel Farooq H. Naek were present in the courtroom.

    At the outset of the hearing, Naek came to the rostrum. Justice Bandial asked the lawyer if PPP had ended its boycott against the court hearing to which the latter replied that he had not boycotted the proceedings.

    Naek replied in the affirmative and said that “we never boycotted the hearing”.

    At one point during the hearing, the CJP noted that harmony among judges was crucial for the Supreme Court. He observed that while judicial proceedings were made public, consultations among judges were considered internal matters.

  • ‘Judges and generals can’t take decisions behind closed doors’: Fawad Chaudhry

    ‘Judges and generals can’t take decisions behind closed doors’: Fawad Chaudhry

    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Fawad Chaudhry criticised the Supreme Court’s detailed judgement given yesterday in a suo motu case on the ruling by former National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri under Article 5 of the Constitution. 

    “The people should be given the right to make decisions. Judges and generals can’t change their policies every day. They can’t take decisions behind closed doors.”

    Fawad said that Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial has the sealed cipher in his office. “Senior judges should ask the CJP why it was not shown to them,” said Fawad. 

    He further claimed that a letter from President Alvi is also with the Supreme Court suggesting the formation of a commission to investigate the matter. However, the court had not responded to Alvi’s letter.

    “Rather than forming a commission to properly investigate the matter, the Supreme Court has given its verdict without even reading the material that was given to it. Moreover, the timing of the ruling is self-explanatory.” 

    The PTI leader asked if the Supreme Court could issue the detailed judgement after three months, why did it not delay it a bit longer. He alleged that it was purposefully done in the wake of the upcoming by-elections in Punjab.

    Moreover, the PTI leader claimed that people are aware of why the SC “did not want to investigate the cipher”. Chaudhry was of the view that the top court “should read the cipher before penning the judgment”.

    He challenged the decision saying that when PTI comes back into power, it will quash the order through Parliament.

    Commenting on Mazhar Alam Miankhel’s additional note which said “if we begin to pursue cases under article 6, we will find there are more people to hang than there are nooses”.

    If I get permission, will get Imran Khan arrested: Rana Sanuallah

    Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said that President Dr Arif Alvi should resign and that if he gets permission from the cabinet to file a case against Imran Khan, he [Khan] will be arrested.

    Rana Sanaullah said that the matter of reference against former Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, President Alvi, former Deputy Speaker Suri will be considered in the cabinet tomorrow. Sanaullah said that Khan “can go to any level for his personal interests”.

    He claimed that PTI is still receiving salaries from the National Assembly and they are still using government vehicles. He urged that they should be de-seated and disqualified.

    Replying to a question, Rana Sanaullah said that Sheikh Rasheed was supposed to be arrested during the long march but he could not be found as he was in hiding.

    PM Shehbaz’s reaction

    Following the judgement, Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif said that everyone should read the judgement. In a tweet, the preimer said, “Honourable Supreme Court’s detailed judgement on Vote of No Confidence exposes the lies and propaganda indulged in by Imran Khan and Co. utterly shameful how IK tried to undermine the Constitution and manufactured the lie of regime change.”

    PTI failed to produce any evidence to support claim of foreign conspiracy: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court issued a detailed judgement on Wednesday (July 13) in a suo motu case on the ruling by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly under Article 5 of the Constitution.

    The court has said that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) failed to “produce any evidence” before the court to support their claim of interference by a foreign force in the ousting of former Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan through a no-confidence motion.

    In the judgement, the apex court revealed that the cipher was not even shown to it although its contents “were partially disclosed in the detailed reasons issued in support of the deputy speaker’s ruling”.

    On April 7, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court had declared Qasim Suri’s ruling on the dismissal of no-confidence motion against Imran Khan as unconstitutional and illegal. The bench unanimously ruled that President Dr Arif Alvi’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly is “illegal” and restored Imran Khan as Prime Minister as well as his cabinet ministers to face the no-confidence motion on April 9.

    No evidence

    The Supreme Court said that it rejected PTI’s plea to take suo motu action over the ‘breach of sovereignty’ allegation, citing “no precedence, absence of evidence and lack of jurisdiction”.

     Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the action by the deputy speaker triggered a chain of events.

    Moreover, the SC noted that neither the Constitution nor the NA procedure rules have given the power to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to dismiss a no-trust resolution “for being inadmissible or non-maintainable”.

    The judgement said, “It was a unilateral decision taken by the Deputy Speaker at the behest of the Law Minister.”

    High treason for President Alvi, Khan and others?

    Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel stressed in his additional note that there must be consequences for President Alvi, ex-PM Imran, former Speaker Asad Qaiser, former Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and former Law Minister Fawad Chaudhry because they prevented the elected representatives of the people “from voting on the resolution” and therefore it was a “blatant transgression of the Constitution”.

    “Whether the stated acts attract Article 6 of the Constitution is also left open to be determined by the Parliamentarians as to whether they leave open the doors for such unconstitutional acts or take suitable measures to stop such like mess in future,” Justice Miankhel suggested.

    Article 6 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan states, “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

    Suri was biased

    Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed in his additional note that the action of the Deputy Speaker was biased. He said that if at the time it was permitted to hold fresh elections, it would amount to giving license to an authority to misuse the extraordinary power of the doctrine of necessity.

  • Supreme Court bars transfers, appointments in high-profile cases

    Supreme Court bars transfers, appointments in high-profile cases

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) is barring authorities from making new appointments and transferring officials involved in “high-profile” and National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases as well as those cases which are being heard by special courts, reports Dawn.

    The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) observed that special courts in Karachi and Lahore lack judges while three accountability courts in Islamabad are also empty.

    The court issued notices to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman and the interior secretary. The court asked the parties concerned to give an explanation as to why there was “interference” in criminal cases, and stopped the NAB and FIA from withdrawing cases till further orders.

    The court also asked to be informed about the steps being taken to protect the record of criminal cases and directed for the record of high-profile cases to be checked and sealed. When Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf protested against this, the CJP said that the record of ongoing cases would not be sealed, only that of the prosecution.

    During the hearing, the CJP also observed that there should be “no interference in the prosecution process or the prosecution wing”.

    The CJP also noticed that FIA’s former director Mohammad Rizwan, who was probing money laundering charges against Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif and his son Punjab Chief Minister (CM) Hamza Shahbaz, was also transferred and later died of a heart attack.

    “We are concerned over these developments,” the CJP said. Justice Bandial, indirectly pointing out at Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) also stated that according to news reports, “thousands” of people had benefitted after their names were removed from the no-fly list.

    At one point, CJP Bandial remarked that the court was only concerned with ensuring justice and adjourned the hearing till May 27.

  • CJP Bandial says not counting a vote during no-trust proceedings against Khan would be ‘contemptuous’

    Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday observed that not counting a vote that has been cast during the no-confidence vote against Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan would be “contemptuous”.

    CJP Bandial further questioned that for how long a dissident Member of the National Assembly (MNA) could be disqualified.

    He made the remarks during the hearing of a presidential reference seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution.

    Earlier, during the hearing, Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the MNA’s vote could be counted in the proceedings conducted before he was de-seated, observing there was no mention of not counting a vote in the 18th Amendment.

    Justice Akhtar observed that the purpose of Article 63-A was to stop defection from party policies. “The party’s collective opinion is above an individual opinion. The collective opinion is important for the stability of democracy.” He said one interpretation of Article 63-A was that the vote of dissidents should not be counted.

    Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Javed Khan argued that the real issue was about clarifying Article 63-A(4). “Someone who violates the Constitution by defection cannot be praised. We cannot read what’s not written in the Constitution. Article 62(1)(f) states that an MNA should be honest and righteous.

    “Should defecting from the party be rewarded? Can those who are dishonest be considered righteous?” he asked.

    Justice Mandokhail replied that every MNA had the right to vote in accordance with Article 95, which deals with the procedure to bring in a no-confidence motion against the prime minister.

    “If vote can be cast, it can also be counted,” he observed, asking the AGP why the government was seeking the court’s opinion if it already had the answer. “If you agree with this point, then withdraw this reference,” he added.

    Earlier, SCBA submitted its response in the apex court, stating that voting is an individual right of an MNA instead of a political party’s collective right under Article 95.

    It declared the MNAs’ right to vote for the no-confidence motion against the prime minister to be an individual capacity in its response to the presidential reference for the interpretation on Article 63A of the Constitution Pakistan.