CJ's NOC now mandatory for SC judges' travel
Supreme Court judges are now required to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) prior to travelling abroad under newly issued regulations that have prompted concerns within the legal fraternity regarding judicial autonomy.
The direction follows a recently promulgated Presidential Order by President Asif Ali Zardari — titled Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2025 — through which paragraph 14 of the President's Order 2 of 1997 has been amended.
According to the amended provision, the Chief Justice has been granted explicit authority to approve or deny leave, whether domestic or foreign, as well as revoke or curtail any previously approved leave for judges of the apex court.
Following the presidential directive, the Supreme Court Registrar, Muhammad Salim Khan, issued a general standing order outlining Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that will now regulate judges' leave and travel.
The issuance of these SOPs has raised eyebrows in the legal fraternity. Some lawyers suggest that the new framework appears aimed at controlling judges, particularly those who voice concerns about the judiciary at events held outside the country.
"Travel restrictions per se do not conflict with judicial independence provided they are purely administrative, applied fairly and operate within the judiciary's internal framework, not under the executive control. In the instant case, the purpose seems to be supervisory, not administrative," former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said.
"It is potentially a tool for control and, or intimidation. Judicial independence means independence in decision-making, but judges' travel restrictions can violate independence if permission is used selectively or punitively or under executive interference," he added.
Khokhar warned that the amendment lacks adequate safeguards against abuse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
KSA envoy calls on CJP
ISLAMABAD: Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Nawaf bin Saeed Ahmad Al-Malkiy on Friday called on the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Yahya Afridi, at the Supreme Court, Islamabad. The chief justice warmly welcomed the ambassador and expressed appreciation for the longstanding, historic, and fraternal ties between Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, rooted in shared faith and mutual respect. During the meeting, both dignitaries discussed avenues for strengthening bilateral cooperation in the field of justice. Emphasis was laid on expanding judicial collaboration under the framework of Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, which includes modernisation and reform of the Kingdom's judicial system. It was noted that Pakistan holds Saudi Arabia in high esteem and values the opportunity to learn from each other's judicial systems and experiences. Both sides agreed that meaningful collaboration through exchange programmes and partnerships between judicial academies can significantly enhance capacity building and promote shared learning. Joint training initiatives were also discussed to equip judicial officers and legal professionals with modern tools and comparative legal perspectives. The discussion further covered areas such as the modernisation of judicial processes, establishment of specialised commercial and labour courts, collaborative research in Islamic jurisprudence, and comparative legal studies focusing on interfaith dialogue. The possibility of jurisprudential dialogue on thematic legal areas, regional judicial engagement, and hosting a Regional Judicial Conference also featured prominently. The chief justice reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to fostering closer institutional linkages with the Saudi judiciary and underscored the importance of shared legal values in promoting regional stability, justice, and the rule of law. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
PTI counsel says no time violation in 15-day window for independents
ISLAMABAD: The counsel of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) asserted that there is no violation of time-line in the majority judgment by granting 15 days to the 41 independents to join the PTI. The judgment of eight judges in reserved seats has straight way declared that 39 independents, out of 80, were PTI candidates, while for 41 candidates laid down the mechanism for their joining the PTI. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and the ex-CJP Qazi Faez also ruled that 39 independents, who in their nomination paper mentioned PTI, are the PTI MNAs. Justice Yahya Afridi also had similar view. Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that 11 judges had accepted the reality that injustice was caused to the PTI candidates in the general elections 2024. Defending the majority judgment, he argued that 15 days were given to 41 candidates to inform that on February 8, 2024 of which party they were member, and not to join a political party, adding the majority judgment did not give relief to the PTI, but to the people of Pakistan. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Friday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. During the proceeding, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned why did Hamid Raza, who is chairman of Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contested election as an independent candidate. Raja clarified that Hamid Raza in his nomination form instead of independent wrote the PTI-SIC alliance. Justice Mandokhail asked Raja that if his argument is accepted then 11 judges' judgment was wrong, and review should have been filed by the SIC rather than the ECP, the PML-N and the PPP. He said the Court cannot compel anyone to join such and such political party. Justice Hilali also questioned whether voting is the fundamental rights? Her objection was that after birth a person does not have voting right automatically, rather he had to wait till the age of 18 years. Justice Baqar Ali Najafi said right of vote is subject to the law and a person can cast vote after attaining the age of 18, and he/she polls vote only when there are elections in his/her constituency. Justice Najafi observed that there had been constitution deviation and the fundamental rights were violated in the past as well. He inquired from Raja what deviation did he see in the last elections, adding if the elections were non transparent and fair then why not the entire process of general elections 2024 declared null and void. Raja responded that instead of striking down the elections the Court laid down the mechanism to rectify the wrongs committed. He submitted that in the past whenever the constitutional scheme was violated or deviated the apex court played its role to bring the situation back to normal, adding if the matter is of general public and the fundamental rights then it can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and Article 187 of the constitution, and under these provisions it has much greater and wider power. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar did not agree with him and said the High Court under Article 199 has greater power than the Supreme Court as it has power of habeas corpus and quo warran to. Raja also contended that there was no issue that the election symbol was taken, but the worst thing happened was that the PTI was derecognised, the candidates were told that if they would write PTI in their nomination forms then those would not be accepted and forced them to write independent in the nomination papers. The violation was committed by the ECP under Article 51 of the constitution that a party was not recognised and its candidates were not allowed to contest election on PTI ticket. These things completely destroyed the sanctity of the elections, he added. The PTI lawyer argued that the reason for joining the SIC was that they had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), which neither contested elections nor had any seat in the Assemblies despite that reserved seats were allocated to it. Earlier, Raja argued that review petitions could be filed if some facts or provisions of law are overlooked, while the erroneous judgment is no ground for review. Similarly, no technical aspect comes in the way to challenge the judgment in review jurisdiction. He contended that a party has to establish that the fact or provision of law was overlooked. The case is adjourned until Monday (June 23). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CB mulls SC powers for 'complete justice'
Some members of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court raised a number of questions with regard to the SC's powers to ensure "complete justice". They also asked how non allocations of reserved seats to the PTI could be called a violation of fundamental rights. PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab's counsel Salman Akram Raja on Friday resumed his arguments in support of the SC's July 12 majority order in the reserved seats case before the 11-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan that is hearing review petitions against the verdict. Raja, in his arguments, stated that it is the responsibility of this court to protect fundamental rights and this responsibility is assigned to it by the Constitution. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how Article 187 applies in this case. Article 187(1) gives the Supreme Court the power to issue any order or direction necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it while Article 187(2) gives it the powers as a civil court to enforce its decisions, including issuing orders to any person or authority. Raja replied that he would explain this in detail later. He said the Supreme Court has broader authority and can use Article 187 together with Article 184 to deliver complete justice. Justice Mandokhail asked whether Article 184(3) is used in public interest cases. Salman Akram Raja responded in the affirmative. He said the SC can use Article 184(3) for public interest and fundamental rights. "When there is destruction or crisis, one does not ask which article appliesthen the Supreme Court must step forward and do what is necessary." Justice Mandokhail asked whether, if a constitutional violation occurs but no specific article applies, the SC should still take action. The lawyer said in such a situation, the SC should do whatever is necessary. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Article 199 cannot be read together with Article 187. He remarked that under Article 199, the high court has powers that even the Supreme Court does not possess. Article 199 of the Constitution outlines the writ jurisdiction of the high courts. It empowers high courts to issue various writs (orders) to enforce fundamental rights and ensure lawful conduct by authorities. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked what, in his view, are the limits of the Supreme Court's powers. Justice Jamal Mandokhail said, "My brother judge suggests that there must be some limit to the powers. Does the Supreme Court have unlimited powers in every case?" He then asked whether any constitutional or legal violation occurred in the majority decision of the reserved seats case. Salman Akram Raja said, "There was no overreach in the Supreme Court's decision." Justice Mandokhail remarked that the Constitution itself gives parties the right to join within three days. Justice Aminuddin Khan interjected.
