Latest news with #26thConstitutionalAmendment
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Govt continues to score legal victories
After the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the government has got another major victory on Thursday as the constitutional bench endorsed the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The government's legal team must be jubilant that in view of the majority order, Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar will continue as acting chief justice of the IHC, which is seen as crucial for the executive authority. The majority order will further frustrate the five IHC judges, who have been facing a tough time since writing a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding interference of agencies in the judicial functions, particularly on matters related to the PTI. A senior government functionary admits that the 26th amendment is the outcome of the six IHC judges' letter. Constitutional Bench (CB) was created through the 26th constitutional amendment. The real purpose of the amendment was to control the superior judiciary for the stability of the current political set-up. The present government doesn't want that courts should give any substantive relief to the incarcerated former prime minister as he is perceived as a threat to the system. Since November last year, legal circles were keenly watching the outcome of three cases that they considered would determine how far the judiciary could go to assert its independence. The constitutional bench did not disappoint the government as two of the cases had been decided in its favour. Firstly, trial of civilians in the military courts have been endorsed by the CB. Now, the government initiative regarding the transfer of three judges to the IHC has also been endorsed by the constitutional bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. It is interesting to note that the CB is not taking up petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment. If things stand the way as they are, it is no surprise that the government may get another victory in the reserved seats case soon. The chance that the July 12 order regarding the allocation of reserved seats will survive is very low. If the CB sets aside the decision, then the government will get a two-thirds majority in parliament. Moreover, in view of the "satisfactory performance", the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) by a majority vote extended the tenure of present CB judges until November 30. Unlike the past practice, CJP Yahya Afridi also voted in favour of giving an extension to the CB judges' tenure. Earlier, he was advocating that all SC judges should be included in the CB. The government has also been successful in appointing like-minded judges in the superior judiciary. Now, it would easily manage to appoint like-minded' chief justices in the high courts on July 1. Legal opinion Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate says that the short order in the judges transfer case is disappointing. The majority has focused on the process of transfer itself being acceptable without dilating upon the particular transfer to Islamabad that was effected, how it was effected and what it aimed to achieve. Jaferii states that the order completely ignores the transfer of judges being expressly temporary in nature by the very language of the Constitution. It proceeds to validate such transfers on the premise of them being safeguarded by needing input from within the judiciary. "It then allows the president to redo the transfer and make clear the period of transfer and the seniority of the judges themselves, effectively opposing the very basis on which the transfers were validated: that this process was within the judiciary and insulated." He states that it is a bizzare reading of a plain constitutional premise. It ignores completely the scheme of appointment envisaged in Article 175A. And if one were to count the peculiar circumstances leading to this petition, completely ignored in the majority order but expressly considered by the minority, its reasoning becomes obvious. The minority opinion, other than the roundabout poetry at the end; is constitutionally sound", he adds. A former law officer says that the majority has taken a literal view. "It is premised on good faith and institution oriented bona fide exercise within the judiciary by three chief justices. If all three CJs act independently and in the interest of the institution, there should be no problem. Perhaps this was the reason Article 200 was inserted and it is working well in India. But if they don't act independently, this will become an instrument of coercion and silencing some judges, as in the present case. The majority has looked purely on law but not considered ground realities and facts." He says that as in many recent important constitutional cases, emotional advocacy and rhetoric continues instead of calm and cogent arguments. It is showing results every day more so when independent minded judges have already been sidelined and disarmed. At least the majority has left the question of temporary or permanent appointment. There is some contradiction as one the one hand the whole exercise is within the judiciary yet the matter has been sent to President alone. The whole exercise should be ordered to be conducted again but now the then CJ, IHC has gone. Who will give input on temporary or permanent status these judges, he adds. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar advocate has stated that the majority decision is constitutionally valid, well-founded, and aligned with the spirit and intent of the constitution. He emphasised that the 3-2 majority judgment rightly affirms that under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, such transfers are permissible with the concurrence of the President, Chief Justices of the concerned high courts, and consent of the transferee judges. The court held that these conditions were conditionally met and found no mala fide on the part of the President. He noted that the president had issued a notification on February 1, 2024, under Article 200(1), transferring Justice Dogar, Justice Sumro, and Justice Muhammad Asif to the Islamabad High Court. Their inter-se seniority was later determined by then Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on 11th February 2025. However, this seniority order was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3). Explaining further, he said Article 194 makes no requirement for a second oath when a judge is transferred between High Courts, as the oath is to the Constitution itself — not to any specific court or jurisdiction. This is a principle recognized across other constitutional systems as well. Hafiz Ahsaan added that Article 200(1) does not specify whether a transfer must be temporary or permanent. Following the judgment, it now falls to the President to determine the nature of the transfers. If deemed temporary, no further seniority determination is needed; if permanent, the President must determine seniority based solely on the judges' original appointment dates. He stressed that under Article 200(3), the service terms of a judge cannot be adversely altered upon transfer, thereby preserving their rank, privileges, and entitlements. He further observed that the President, as directed by the Court, must independently determine seniority without relying on advice from the federal government. If the President declares the transfers permanent, and seniority is accordingly based on initial appointment, Justice Dogar may emerge as the senior-most among the three — qualifying him for consideration as Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court under Article 175A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. Contrasting with India's centralized seniority list, he noted that Pakistan's Constitution entrusts each High Court to determine seniority based on initial appointment — a practice also followed in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. Hafiz Ahsaan while concluding said the 3-2 judgment is constitutionally sustainable and reinforces the legal structure under articles 200, 194, and 175A. The president's forthcoming decision will help shape a lasting constitutional precedent on judicial seniority and the limits of presidential authority in such matters.
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC, SHC: JCP extends term of CBs
ISLAMABAD: The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on Thursday extended the term of the Constitutional Benches of the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court. The Constitutional Benches of the Supreme Court term is extended till 30th November 2025, while the SHC CB period was extended for six months w.e.f. 23rd July 2025, with the new nominations and replacements i.e. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry (new), Justice Jaffar Raza (new), Justice Agha Faisal (replaced), and Justice Sana Akram Minhas (replaced). The constitutional bench in the apex court and the High Courts were created following the enactment of 26th Constitutional Amendment. In the Supreme Court a committee, set up under Article 191A of the constitution, is led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ali Mazahar for the selection of judges for different CBs. Three more judges for SHC CB nominated: JCP nominates five more judges for SC CB Presently, the total strength of the SC constitutional bench is 15; out of that four are from Punjab – Justice Aminuddin, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi; four are from Sindh – Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar; three are from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Shakeel Ahmed and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim; three are from Balochistan – Justice Jamal Khan Makdokhail, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and one is from Islamabad – Justice Aamer Farooq Two meetings of the JCP were held in the Supreme Court in the chair of Chief Justice of Pakistan; the agenda of first meeting was; extension in the term of the SC CB; and the policy decision regarding framing of rules for setting up effective standards for annual performance evaluation of judges of the High Courts under Article 175A (20) of the Constitution. While, the second meeting consider the term of the Constitutional Benches of High Court of Sindh. The JCP chairperson has been pleased to constitute a broad-based committee for the Judicial Performance Evaluation of Judges of all High Courts, comprising members from the Judiciary, Parliament, Executive, and the legal fraternity, to prepare draft rules for the Annual Judicial Performance Evaluation of High Court Judges. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Constitutionalism — a lost sanctity
To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots. — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Any religious place of worship and its holy book are revered as sacred by their followers. In much the same way, a state and its governing document 'Constitution' holds a sacrosanct place in the hearts of their citizens and constitutionalists. Just as any adulterated alteration of holy scriptures incites the fury of the faithful; likewise, any malicious amendment to the sacred document of the 'Constitution' provokes outrage in a society that firmly believes in upholding democratic principles. The journey of constitutional process in Pakistan has been nothing short of a rollercoaster ride. From the prolonged delay in framing and adopting the first Constitution to the recurring adventurism of experimenting with the adoption of a Presidential or a Parliamentary form of government, and from the question over a Federal versus a unitary system, to the abrupt military takeovers and undemocratic overreach of power by elected civilian representatives, Pakistan's constitutional trajectory has been fraught with ambivalence. Growing up in a household where political conversations were the main course of every table-talk, I was unknowingly familiarised with unsettling phrases like 'abrogation', 'suspension', 'reframing', and the most loathed of all, the Eighth Amendment (inserted by the then military dictator, President Ziaul Haq to strengthen his grip on power and suppress political dissent) that left an unconscious, yet profound impact on my understanding of constitutionalism. As a political science student, I observed the Seventeenth Amendment saga (brought in by the then President, General Pervez Musharraf in collusion with so-called democratic-minded religious and political parties) with a personal interest from the comfort of my couch, viewing it as an academic learning experience. However, I remained oblivious of the gravity of its repercussions. Years later, after spending nearly a decade in the professional arena, the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment (introduced in the backdrop of post-9th May political and military tug-of-war) felt like a direct punch to my face – finally making me realise the devastating impact of these calculated executive and legislative maneuvers. I find myself jolted by the ongoing tremors of this Amendment – an impact intensified by the rather unfortunate than fortunate experience of being position at the heart of it all, working on matters closely tied to its aftermath. Simply put, Constitutional Amendments in the past by the military dictators were focused on consolidation and legitimisation of their authoritarian regimes, whilst the civilian governments concentrated in strengthening the executive branch. However, the insertion of the 26th Amendment has had the effect of targeted weakening of the judicial branch; it has virtually glued the judicial institution with the executive in blatant violation of the fundamental constitutional mandate of trichotomy of powers and independence of judiciary as enshrined in Clause (3) of Article 175 of the presently enforced 1973 Constitution. Reflecting on my political science lectures, I am, rightly or wrongly, reminded that the Constitution not being merely a legal document but a foundational covenant between the rulers and the ruled; valued as a social contract between the State and its citizens, if that is the correct version, then who grants corridors of power the authority to unilaterally bend its clauses while expecting absolute obedience by the governed. It is an elemental legal principle that a contract loses its legitimacy when one party manipulates its terms to its advantage while disregarding the consent of the other. With the advent of the 21st century's sophisticated standards, overt military coups becoming increasingly unpopular. In their place, a far more alarming trend of employing covert methods to dominate the ruthless game of thrones has emerged, which stems from the nations' most revered legal scripture itself. In the guise of upholding the constitutional spirit and rule of law, state actors systematically set legal machinery into motion, weaving legal frameworks into a silken trap. They wield the axe of 'amendment' like executioners, striking down democratic norms and enclosing them in a gilded cage, all under the banner of legitimate governance. Thus, authoritarian forces are granted the licence to seize power under the illusion of constitutionality, gradually hollowing out state institutions like termites devouring the foundations of a grand structure, all while flawlessly maintaining the façade of constitutional integrity. This wave of Constitutional adventurism leading us down the path of legal debacle and ultimate frustration compels me to question my very choice of entering the legal profession, especially as I stand witness to a judiciary that mirrors a disarmed soldier on the battlefield, a toothless prey confronted by a fierce and unrelenting executive. The survival of a nation does not merely depend upon its military might or economic prosperity, but hinges on an unwavering commitment to the principles enshrined in its primitive framework. The Constitution, like faith, must be honoured, protected and upheld – for once its sanctity is lost, the risk is not just the erosion of legal provisions, but the very soul of the nation itself.
Business Recorder
6 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Al-Qadir Trust case: Aleema slams delay in hearing appeals of IK, spouse
RAWALPINDI: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan's sister Aleema Khan on Friday criticised the delay in hearing the appeals of Khan and his wife in the Al-Qadir Trust case, claiming that if the Islamabad High Court (IHC) takes up the matter, bail would be granted within minutes. Speaking to reporters outside an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) after attending proceedings in the November 26 protest case, Aleema alleged that the Al-Qadir Trust case is being deliberately kept off the court's roster. 'Our lawyer Salman Safdar says this is a three-minute case,' she said, insisting that both Khan and his wife would be granted bail as soon as the case is heard. Aleema went on to allege that the case is so weak that, if legal arguments are presented, criminal proceedings could potentially be initiated against Judge Nasir Javed Rana - the judge who had sentenced Khan to 14 years in prison and his wife Bushra Bibi to seven years in the £190 million National Crime Agency (NCA) scam, commonly known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. She also voiced dissatisfaction with the Islamabad Bar Association (IBA) president, saying that lawyers have expressed no confidence in IBA president, Wajid Gilani. Criticising what she called political double standards, she said, 'You ask for votes by making promises, and then go on to support the 26th Constitutional Amendment.' Aleema appealed to lawyers across the country to stand up for the rule of law, saying, 'We consider you our leaders when it comes to defending justice', adding that 'today, I am telling the legal community that the law is being buried.' Khan's sister urged the legal community once again to take a stand, especially in the wake of the 26th Amendment, warning that the 27th is coming. 'If anything remains in burying the constitution and the rule of law that will be completed with another amendment,' she cautioned. Earlier, she, along with PTI leaders, appeared before ATC judge Amjad Ali Shah in cases registered in connection with the November 26 protest. Khan's sister and PTI's Punjab chief organiser Aliya Hamza appeared before the court along with their lawyers. Aliya Hamza appeared before the court in four cases registered against her in connection with PTI's November 26 protest. The court extended Aliya Hamza's interim bail until June 27, while the interim bail of Aleema Khan was extended till June 26 in a case registered against her at Sadiqabad police station. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
7 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHCBA to hold jurists confab on 26th Amendment
The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has announced to organise a jurists conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Constitutional Amendment and invited the Insaf Lawyers Forum to suggest names of its two jurists for the conference. IHCBA President Wajid Ali Gilani wrote a letter to Ali Bukhari of the Insaf Lawyers Forum — which is linked to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — in response to his critical letter. Gilani said that the 26th Amendment was passed by parliament and the lawyers would uphold the Constitution. "Lawyers are not legislators, our mandate is to defend the constitutional structure not to hold protest marches against legislation," Gilani said. Two parliamentarians from your party, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Senator Ali Zafar, were present during its [26th Amendment] passage." He further said that IHCBA would convene a Jurist Conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Amendment, adding that eminent jurists from all political parties would be invited. "You should nominate two jurists from your party to participate in the Jurist Conference."
