In partnership with
Profit
Tuesday, 28 March, 2023 I 6 Ramzan, 1444 ECC defers price increase of 119 drugs
World Bank warns of ‘lost decade’ in global growth without bold policy shifts
Stakeholders point out serious flaws in OGRAs foreign exchange losses adjustments
PTI to launch report featuring human rights violations against party tomorrow
Story on Back Page
Story on Back Page
Story on Back Page
Story on Back Page
Rs 15.00 | Vol XIII No 269 I 8 Pages I Islamabad Edition
Dissenting sC juDges Call for revisiting CjP’s ‘one-man show’ g
Two SC judges’ rule suo motu case on Punjab, KP elections was dismissed by majority
g
Formation of full court only way forward: Shah Khawar Advocate
ISLAMABAD
i
Staff RepoRt
n a surprise development, two judges of the Supreme Court – Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail – issued a 27-page detailed order on Monday, stating that the suo motu case regarding the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) elections’ date announcement was dismissed by a majority of four judges out of seven. The verdict has further exposed fissures among the apex court judges. The two judges also called to “revisit the power of the one-man show” enjoyed by the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in order to “strengthen” the institution and “ensure public trust and confidence” in the apex court. The order stated that the court could not be dependent on “the solitary decision of one man” but should be “regulated through a rulebased system approved by all judges of the court under Article 191 of the Constitution”. “In regulating the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) including the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction; the constitution of benches to hear such cases; the constitution of Regular Benches to hear all the other cases instituted in this Court; and the constitution of Special Benches,” it stated. They verdict maintained that the power of doing a “one-man show” is
not only anachronistic, outdated and obsolete but also is antithetical to good governance and incompatible to modern democratic norms. “One-man show leads to the concentration of power in the hands of one individual, making the system more susceptible to the abuse of power. In contrast, a collegial system with checks and balances helps prevent the abuse and mistakes in the exercise of power and promotes transparency and accountability… We must not forget that our institution draws its strength from public perception”. It continued that the CJP was conferred with “wide discretion in the matter of constituting Benches and assigning cases to them under the present Supreme Court Rules 1980” and the “unbridled power enjoyed by the Chief Justice” had “brought severe criticism and lowered the ho-
PEMRA prohibits live coverage ahead of Imran Khan’s court appearance in Islamabad ISLAMABAD The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) issued a notification on Monday banning live and recorded coverage of rallies and public gatherings in Islamabad ahead of former prime minister Imran Khan’s court appearance in the capital. PEMRA said the ban will cover public meetings and rallies in the Islamabad area for March 27, and that the licenses of satellite TV channels will be revoked for violating the instructions. According to the notification, the live broadcast of violent mobs and attacks on law enforcement agencies is likely to spread chaos and panic. “Such footage or images were seen on TV without any editorial oversight during the recent standoff between political party workers and law enforcement agencies in Lahore and Islamabad wherein, the violent mob used petrol bombs, injuring armless policemen and blazing police vehicles,” it claimed. The regulator added the telecast of such footage on different TV stations “created chaos and panic” among viewers and the police. “Such activism by mob not only jeopardises law and order situation but also makes public properties and lives vulnerable”, it cautioned.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 03
Imran gets bail in seven cases related to Islamabad court violence g
Staff RepoRt
nour and prestige of this Court”. The judges advised that “in order to build a strong, open and transparent institution, we have to move towards a rule-based institution”. They added that where “the matter of constituting a bench for hearing a case under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is concerned, there must also be uniformity and transparency, which can be best assured by constituting a regular five or seven-member bench once at the commencement of every judicial year, or twice a year for each term of six months, by including in that bench the senior most Judges or the senior-most Judges of each Province on the strength of this court with the Chief Justice or the Senior Puisne Judge as head of that bench”. According to the order, the constituting of special benches on case
to case basis, after the institution of the cases, “is complete negation of fairness, transparency and impartiality required of a judicial institution to maintain its legitimacy and credibility of its judgments”. The judges stated that “the suo motu proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are wholly unjustified in the mode and manner they were taken up under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, besides being initiated with undue haste”. They furthered that the matter did not constitute a fit case to exercise extraordinary original jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 184(3) and was this “not maintainable” as the “same constitutional and legal issues seeking the same relief are pending and being deliberated upon by the respective Provincial High Courts in Lahore and Peshawar”. The order maintained that there was “no justification to invoke” the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings, as a single bench of the Lahore High Court “has already decided the matter in favour of the petitioner before the said High Court”. It added that the intra-court appeals filed against the said judgment were pending before the division bench of the LHC and none of the petitioners had approached the apex court.
Photographer and supporters of former prime minister arrested on way to hearing ISLAMABAD Staff RepoRt
Imran Khan, former prime minister and chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party, has been granted interim bail in seven cases registered against him following a police crackdown on his supporters outside the judicial complex on March 18 by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). In petitions filed at the court, Khan requested protective bail in the cases registered at various police stations across the capital, which are all linked to the clampdown outside the complex where he appeared in the foreign gifts, or Toshakhana, case. The petitions, filed through Barrister Salman Safdar, argued that Khan would suffer “irreparable loss” if he were to be arrested. They also said that as the head of the largest political party, there is an apprehension that Khan’s opponents could further their political ambitions and nefarious designs if he is not granted bail. A two-member bench of the court, Aamer Farooq and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, has taken up the petitions.
During the hearing, Safdar argued that the bio-metric verification objection should not be imposed on individuals over the age of 60. Justice Farooq responded by saying that bio-metric verification has become much easier now. The lawyer explained that they had acquired protective bail for the PTI chairman from the Lahore High Court (LHC), after which they arrived at the judicial complex but were not allowed to proceed further. He further said that additional FIRs against Khan were filed that day. Justice Farooq asked Safdar why they bypassed the trial court and came straight to the IHC. The lawyer responded he would present the Supreme Court’s judgments on this matter. The justice also said the security threats to Khan must be genuine as he had been attacked once, and the court had asked the chief election commissioner to provide security to him several times. Jahangir Khan Jadoon, advocate general for Islamabad, said the trial court was shifted to the judicial complex from a local court in F8 sector.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 03
fiqah-e-hanfia
lahore sehr: 4:36 aM iftar: 6:21 PM
islaMabad sehr: 4:36 aM iftar: 6:29 PM
karachi sehr: 5:12 aM iftar: 6:47 PM
fiqah-e-jafaria lahore sehr: 4:26 aM iftar: 6:31 PM
islaMabad sehr: 4:26 aM iftar: 6:39 PM
karachi sehr: 5:02 aM iftar: 6:57 PM
PM announces free flour distribution for non-BISP poor
ISLAMABAD Staff RepoRt
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that dedicated counters would be established to provide free flour bags to needy individuals not registered with the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) at distribution centres as part of the Ramadan Package. During his visit to a free wheat flour distribution centre on Monday, the prime minister explained that a significant number of people who are not registered with BISP and living below the poverty line deserve free flour bags. National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) and Punjab Information Technology Board (PITB) have developed a system to include non-BISP people, which will be fully operational by Monday, according to the prime minister. Non-BISP deserving people will be eligible to receive free flour from separate counters after registering their names in the system. The prime minister praised the Punjab government and the Rawalpindi administration for working tirelessly to make the distribution process smooth and uninterrupted. He also commended the efforts of the interim chief minister of Punjab and chief secretary in the flour distribution process. Despite significant economic challenges, the government is committed to working for the relief of underprivileged individuals, according to the prime minister. He also urged people from all walks of life to support the government in its pro-poor efforts. To ensure the smooth distribution of bags to people, he said he would make unannounced visits to flour distribution centres across the province. Sharif also directed officials to accommodate individuals from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Kashmir, and Gilgit-Baltistan who are living in Punjab but not registered with BISP.
Supreme Court calls ECP delay of Punjab election an obstacle to its order ISLAMABAD Staff RepoRt
The Supreme Court called the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to delay the elections in Punjab, which were scheduled for April 30, until October 8 an “obstruction” in the way of its directive to hold fresh elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa within a constitutional timeframe of 90 days. The apex court Monday took up a petition moved by Pakistan Tehreek-iInsaf (PTI) against the order of the tribunal to delay the elections which it ruled will now be held together with general elections in the country. A larger bench of five justices, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising justices Ijaz ulAhsan, Munib Akhtar, Amin ud-Din Khan, and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, heard the case and served notices on the federation, ECP and caretaker administrations in Punjab and KP.
On Wednesday, the ECP postponed the elections for more than five months, claiming that “it is not possible to hold and organise the elections honestly, justly, fairly, in a peaceful manner.” It said it would be unable to provide a “level playing field” to all political parties. The move violated the Supreme Court ruling earlier this month that a new election be held within 90 days of the two parliaments being disbanded. Subsequently, Barrister Syed Ali Zafar filed a petition on behalf of PTI, requesting that the tribunal be directed to hold the elections on the previously scheduled date of April 30. It contended that the decision violated the Constitution and amounted to amending and subverting it. During the proceedings, Zafar informed the Supreme Court that the election commission had failed to comply with the court’s March 1 orders to set a date for elections in Punjab and
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Presenting his arguments, the lawyer for the opposition party said the ECP had violated the Supreme Court’s orders thrice. He explained that the electoral watchdog had rejected the election schedule announced by the president and had now postponed the elections until October 8, even though it did not have the authority to set a new date for the polls. He added that the ECP had overlooked the court’s orders and had violated the 90-day period for announcing the election date. In response, Justice Mandokhail asked what the petitioner wanted from the court, to which Zafar replied that they wanted the court to ensure the implementation of the Constitution and its orders. At this, the judge reminded the lawyer that the execution of court orders is the responsibility of the high court. Zafar argued that the apex court had jurisdiction over the matter since it
had previously used its authority in the case. Justice Akhtar concurred with the PTI lawyer and noted that the decision of the ECP had become an obstruction
to the court’s orders. He observed that only the Supreme Court could decide whether the orders had been violated or not.