Latest news with #SyedHassanAzharRizvi
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Women, minorities: SC CB says 39 reserved seats should have been allocated to PTI
ISLAMABAD: The Constitution Bench observed on Tuesday that the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, to the extent of 39 candidates, as ruled by 11 judges, should have been allocated to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi inquired why the Supreme Court judgment upto 39 candidates has been implemented. He noted that when other political parties in the National and the provincial assemblies have been allocated reserved seats then why those were withheld to the PTI. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) at least to the extent of 39 candidates should have distributed reserved seats to the PTI. Director General (Law) of the Commission, who was present in the Court, submitted that the notification of 39 independents, joining the PTI, has been issued, but the reserved seats could not be distributed, as the review petitions were filed and once the verdict on the petitions passed then the reserved seats would also be allocated. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, 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. Faisal Siddiqui argued that 11 judges of a 13-member bench maintained that 39 independents are members of the PTI and it is entitled to the reserved seats. He submitted that on mere technicalities that the PTI was not before the Court or has not filed any application or not expressly impleaded, therefore, the reserved seats cannot be denied to it. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned that those candidates who in their nomination forms wrote that they are independents then how they could be forced to join a particular political party. He said it is not a simple thing because majority of the candidates were not contesting elections for the first time, and were educated people. Justice Amin asked whether it is written in the Elections law that the candidate has to submit an affidavit along with his nomination paper. He said when a candidate had given affidavit that he has contested as an independent candidate then how the Court can tell those persons to join a particular party. He asked Faisal why did he want that the Court ignore all these facts and accept his plea. The SIC counsel responded that they were demanding only those things, which Fatima Jinnah had asked for in 1960s. Justice Amin said no PTI candidate agitated his grievance before the Court and they also joined the SIC. In his arguments, Faisal raised a pertinent question whether the Commission which adjudicates between the two parties can invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to defend its decisions by filing review petition. 'This is clear-cut mala fide', he said, and added that the Commission is taking sides. He contended that other parties i.e. PPP and PML-N can file review petitions, the review petition of the ECP should outrightly be rejected as it is not maintainable.' He said a party (ECP) which has not implemented the judgment for the last one year was given right of audience. 'There has to be some dignity of the Supreme Court, as its verdicts should not be defied like that.' Faisal argued that the majority judgment has increased the time-line so that the independent candidates could join the PTI. He maintained that not only the Supreme Court has extended time period in the past, but the Election Commission of Pakistan also did the same in 2018 when for the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) they had issued a new schedule for reserved seats. Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned should this bench do the same? He said that the timeline under Article 51 of the Constitution is not writing in stone, it can be relaxed, as the majority judgment noted that the whole process of general elections February 2024 was marred with mala fide; therefore, they have reversed the process and 15-day time was given to the PTI backed independent candidates to decide about joining the party. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the constitution gives three days to the independents to join any party they wish, then why the 15 days were given, adding the majority judgment introduced new thing in the constitution. Faisal Siddiqui asked the Court not to see this case with an ordinary lens, saying this case is most important as the will of the people through their representatives is involved in this case. He also requested the bench to see complete justice by the majority judgment be respected. He said; 'Even though the judgment is against me (the SIC), I still would defend the judgment.' The case was adjourned until today (Wednesday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC rejects plea against mobile towers around KHI airport
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal against the installation of mobile towers around the airport in Karachi, saying that aviation and other authorities concerned said that those towers were built in accordance with international aviation standards. A three-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Aqeel Abbasi heard the appeal. According to the observations of the responsible parties, the bench said that there was no danger to the planes taking off from the airport. The petitioner Muhammad Aslam Khan Advocate had argued that some time ago, a Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane had crashed into a residential area, in which around 100 people died. The court said in remarks that the accident on the Flight PK-8303 was not due to the population. During the hearing, Justice Mazhar remarked that the house which was hit by the plane was not so high. He said that planes fly daily and the aviation authorities had no problem, so why someone else had the problem with it. Justice Abbasi remarked that entire population around the airport could not be evacuated. Justice Rizvi said in his remarks that if any accident happened in the future, the responsibility would lie with the authorities who were currently saying that the towers did not pose any problem for the planes.
