LHC larger bench to hear MPO case on 7th

The Lahore High Court (LHC) chief justice, Aalia Neelum, has formed a larger bench to hear a plea filed by the government against suspension of a detention law, the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance, 1960.
A day earlier, on Thursday, CJ Aalia Neelum reserved her order while hearing an application for an early hearing of a petition filed against the LHC's last year's order. The CJ unveiled her order on Friday, announcing formation of a larger bench to hear the government appeal.
The LHC on Nov 1, 2024 temporarily restrained the deputy commissioners (DCs) in Punjab from issuing further detention orders under section 3 of the MPO Ordinance 1960.
Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq passed the order while hearing a petition filed by a PTI leader At the last hearing of the case, PTI's counsel Azhar Siddique had raised objection to the bench comprising Justice Neelum, contending that the matter was still pending in the court of Justice Rafiq.
He argued that the bench comprising the CJ did not have the jurisdiction to hear this case. He said Justice Rafiq had already examined the case in great detail.
"Justice Amjad Rafiq had issued a stay order in accordance with the law," he said. The CJ remarked that Justice Rafiq was currently hearing cases at the LHC's Multan Registry.
Siddique argued that the bench of Justice Amjad Rafiq was in Lahore on March 21 and the case cannot be listed before this bench. The CJ, however, rejected his contention, asking him to "keep quiet". She later reserved her order in the case amid protest by the counsel.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Express Tribune

2 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 applies—then 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.

Express Tribune

2 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Omar warns of oil shock from conflict

Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan addressing a press conference in Islamabad on March 11, 2024. SCREENGRAB Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan has warned that the ongoing Iran-Israel war will shake the global economy as Iran and Kuwait hold the world's largest oil wells. Speaking at a press conference, the PTI leader described Israel's onslaught on Iran as a terrorist attack, lamenting that the Iranian leadership was attacked that plays an important role. He said the world consumes 104 million barrels of oil per day. If anything happens in the aftermath of the conflict, strategic reserves would last only about 12 days.

Express Tribune

4 hours ago

• Express Tribune

PHC questions FIR in PECA case

The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued notices to the federal government and other relevant authorities, seeking a response regarding the registration of an FIR against a local lawyer under the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). A two-member bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Abdul Fayyaz heard the case. During the proceedings, Justice Syed Arshad Ali questioned the legal basis of the FIR, remarking, "How can the police register a case under the PECA Act when it falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)? How can an SHO file such a case?" The petitioner, Advocate Roman Shah, appeared before the court. Justice Arshad Ali asked him why the FIR had been registered. Shah responded that he was unaware of the specific allegations and only knew that it had been filed under PECA. Justice Abdul Fayyaz noted, "The PECA Act falls within FIA's domain. How did the SHO register the FIR?" Justice Arshad Ali further added, "If the matter is within FIA's jurisdiction, then the SHO has no authority to register such a case." The petitioner informed the court that he had already secured interim bail. The Assistant Attorney General told the bench that the FIR was based on a social media post made from the petitioner's account, allegedly targeting a senior official of a security agency. Justice Arshad Ali questioned the petitioner's actions, asking, "Why do you share such content that creates problems?" In response, Advocate Roman Shah denied ownership of the account, stating, "This is not my account. Nowadays, fake accounts are created using other people's photos. I have no knowledge of this post." Following the hearing, the court issued notices to the federal government and other respondents, directing them to submit their replies.