Latest news with #AminuddinKhan
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'SC must overturn unconstitutional order'
Justice Aminuddin Khan has observed that the apex court is bound by the Constitution and it can revoke any unconstitutional verdict. Justice Khan made this remark on Thursday while leading a 11-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that is hearing review petitions filed against the SC's July, 2024 verdict in the reserved seats case. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court through a majority of 8 to 5 resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination papers' submission could do that now within a period of 15 days. The government had later filed review petitions against the verdict. During the hearing on Thursday, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned whether the Constitution mandated that reserved seats must not remain vacant. The counsel for a petitioner Salman Akram Raja responded that the court had already declared that these seats cannot be left unfilled. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked which fundamental rights had been violated by not allocating reserved seats to the PTI, while Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan queried whether the court could fill a political vacuum on its own initiative. The court will resume hearing of the case today.
Express Tribune
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
JCP to review tenure of CB
A crucial meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will be held on June 19 in the Supreme Court building. The meeting will discuss extending the tenure of constitutional benches. The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches. At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Performance of CB The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment. The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution. Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB. A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous. "It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance. "Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer. He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. "Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times." He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment," he adds.
Express Tribune
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
JCP to review tenure of constitutional benches
A crucial meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will be held on June 19 in the Supreme Court building. The meeting will discuss extending the tenure of constitutional benches. The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches. At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Extension of constitutional benches has been proposed for the second time. The federal government on December 21 managed to get its way at the JCP which had rejected a suggestion to nominate all Supreme Court judges to its Constitutional Bench (CB) by a majority vote of 7 to 6. Except Justice Aminuddin, all JCP's judicial members namely CJP Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had voted for all the Supreme Court judges to be part of the CB. Two PTI members Barrister Gahar Ali Khan and Barrister Ali Zafar supported their view. However, the government as well as the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representatives in JCP did not support their suggestion. The judicial members had faced embarrassment, when their own fellow judge, Justice Aminuddin Khan, did not support their suggestion. The JCP by majority 7 to 6 endorsed the extension of the CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan for six months. Once again it is being expected that the government will be successful to get majority votes for the extension of present CB, which performance is under question. There is no objective criteria for the selection of judges for CB. Performance of CB The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment. The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution. Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB. A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous. "It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance. "Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer. He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. 'Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times.' He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment,' he adds.
Business Recorder
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC questions validity of majority verdict granting relief to PTI amid review pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) questioned if reviews are allowed then which judgment would prevail, as the majority verdict granted relief to a political party (PTI), which was not before the Court. A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24 had passed five separate orders. Eight judges comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed HasanAzhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan passed one set of order, declaring Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI) is eligible for reserved seats, while Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel released separate note. Similarly, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote their own independent opinions. PTI reserved seats: SC issues notices to respondents A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Monday, 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. Justice Amin observed that the main issue in Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)'s appeal against the Peshawar High Court (PHC)'s judgment was reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, which has not been decided. He stated that none of 80 independent candidates, which had joined the SIC, were neither before ECP, nor PHC and the apex court. The Court on May 22, 2025 dismissed SIC's three applications, pertaining to the composition of the bench; same numerical strength, which heard the original case should hear the review petitions; and that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment. The bench, however, allowed live-streaming of review petitions hearing. The lawyers of the ECP, PPP and PML-N informed the bench they have filed a written submission. Justice Amin told the SIC counsels to get the copy of their submission from the SC Office, and adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday). Sikandar Bashir, appearing on behalf of the Commission, stated that the ECP has not waived its right of rebuttal. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned that if the reviews are allowed then which judgment would prevail. Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats of PML-N and PPP tickets, but were de-seated due to the SC's order, contended that the petitions have been filed against the majority judgment. He said if the reviews are allowed then the majority judgment would be overturned as no one has challenged the minority opinions. Justice Mandokhail asked; 'Can I change my views.' Makhdoom replied 'Yes you can.' He argued that the judgment on timeline is beyond the jurisdiction of the apex court. He submitted that Justice NaeemAkhtar Afghan, in his note, stated that to change the timeline, described in Article 51 of the Constitution, for joining a political party by the independents after notification of their victory, is like re-writing the constitution. He said that the justice is administered within the fourwalls of the constitution, adding the Court has power to interpret the constitution and laws, but cannot rewrite them. Makhdoom contended that the majority judgment not only quashed the ECP notification, but also allotted reserved seats to the PTI, and changed the time-limit, given in the constitution. The Court noted that the PTI existed before and after the general elections, but had not contested elections on a particular symbol. Justice MusarratHilali said the symbol is for the general public, if it is not given to the party then it does not disenfranchise the party. She noted that Chairman SIC Hamid Raza has himself contested elections on the ticket of PTI Nazriati. She inquired that when a party is not in the Parliament then how reserved seats could be allotted to it. Justice Hilali also questioned on what grounds the reserved seats were given to the PTI, when it was neither before the ECP, PHC and even the SC. 'It seems that suomoto kind of notice was taken in this regard.' Justice Mandokhail said that he could not understand that when some candidates who mentioned in their nomination papers, PTI and had its certificates then why after winning the polls joined SIC, which was not in the Parliament. Had they not done so they could have reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the National Assembly. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether under Article 187 of the Constitution there is any limit in the SC power. Makhdoom said that the election disputes should be treated like civil disputes where the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. He said that PTI's Women Wing leader application was neither allowed nor dismissed; adding the prayer in her petition was that she be permitted to implead party to assist the Court and not necessary party. Justice Mandokhail said that the presiding officers and returning officers failed to perform their duties in accordance with the law and constitution during February 2024 general election. Should the SC shut its eyes, he asked Makhoom. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
22-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Super tax hearing adjourned
A five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, adjourned the hearing on a case concerning the imposition of super tax until Tuesday. During the hearing, counsel for a company argued that Section 4B should be aligned with the income tax law. He pointed out that a 4 per cent super tax is imposed on banking companies, even if their income is as low as Rs10. In contrast, an individual earning over Rs400 million is subjected to a 3 per cent super tax. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi observed that the super tax was abolished in 2002 for all companies except banking institutions.
