Govt to appeal against Justice Shah’s order for full bench on committees’ powers

#Govt #appeal #Justice #Shahs #order #full #bench #committees #powers

ISLAMABAD: In a major development, the federal government has decided to challenge the order of senior Supreme Court Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, which deliberately complete the powers of the committees to assign cases to the benches. A court bench was constituted. Ion informed the Apex Court constitutional bench on Tuesday.

The AG argued that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah took a sovereign notice and “exceeded” his authority, saying he did not have the authority to do so.

“The federal government will challenge tomorrow’s unconstitutional order,” AG informed the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench during a trial on Customs Regulatory Duty.

A two -member bench comprising Justice Shah and Justice Akh Ahmed Abbasi withdrew the notice of contempt against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nasir Abbas and the file was given to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi. Sended for

During today’s hearing, a five-member bench-Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhil, Justice Naeem Afghan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Hassan Azar Rizvi-AGAon have said that the petition for review of justice is to be filed. It has been decided. Shah’s 13th and 16th orders.

On this, Justice Mazhar remarked that Justice Shah had directed the Customs Regulatory Duty case to be decided before its bench.

“Can we move forward? [with the review petitions] In the presence of this order? “He asked.

Justice Aminuddin, during the hearing, inquired why the proceedings were postponed till today (January 28) when he was postponed on January 27 after the January 13 meeting.

In response, Justice Mandokhel explained that a three -member constitutional bench judge had recovered himself from the matter.

On this, Justice Rizvi questioned whether the judge had the authority to order a trial before a specific bench or order the formation of a bench. Meanwhile, Justice Afghan remarked that Barrister Salahuddin was responsible for the entire dispute.

Justice Mazhar further said that according to the court order, Barrister Salahuddin insisted that a regular bench could hear the case.

“Do you not trust us?” Justice Mandokil asked, he added that if the lawyer is confident that he is disqualified or does not understand the law, he should be informed.

He added that if there was a problem with the “new system”, it was a different matter.

Justice Aminuddin highlighted the court order from February 2021, which was issued during the period of former CJP Omar Eta Bandel, as is related to the matter. After that, Justice Mazhar remarked that the January 16 order states that the matter should be “heard”, saying that a matter is either “heard” or “not heard”.

“Where was this term – ‘the case should be heard’ – come from?” He asked.

At this point, the AG submitted two orders from January 12: one for the next January 27, and the other for January 16. He claimed that the date has been transformed into a sequence.

In response, Justice Mazhar questioned how it can be announced that the case was heard without issuing a rule of Rule 27A to the AG.

Justice Mandukil asked if the bench had issued a contempt of court notice to a regular bench, explaining, “We have only heard the case.”

After this, Justice Afghan pointed out that yesterday’s order directed that the case be assigned to the same bench and even the names of the judges should be mentioned. He asked whether a court order, right or wrong, allowed them to listen to the case?

Expressing frustration, Justice Mandokil described the situation as unfortunate and said that this should not have happened.

Justice Mazhar asked which bench should listen to the case, asking whether he should be handed over to the judges or should stay with the current bench. He criticized the impression created by the lawyers, saying that the dignity of the judges should be respected.

Frustrated, he sarcastically suggested delaying the case for 20 years.

Barrister Salahuddin responded to the judges, accusing them of challenging their reputation. He stressed, “I will give a strong answer.”

To calm Salahuddin, Justice Mandokhil advised him not to be emotional, and assured him that the judges respected his feelings.

Justice Mandukil smiled and said, “Family is already tainted.”

At this point, the Constitutional Bench withdrew the orders of Justice Shah January 13 and 16. These orders included notices for the translation of Article 191A of the Constitution. The bench also directed that the record of Nasir Abbas’s humiliation be linked to the customs duty case and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.

Recovery of Justice Aisha

Meanwhile, Justice Aisha recovered himself from hearing a case on Monday. In his written reply, he explained that she was part of the bench that had issued an order on January 16.

Emphasizing that judicial orders should be respected and should not be neglected by administrative measures, Justice Aisha remarked that the former cannot be abolished by the latter, because the court orders “court. There are authentic announcements, which represent its authority and confirm judicial freedom. “

“If there is any disagreement with the court’s order, it should be focused on the judicial proceedings. The administrative order – especially from the court – the sanctity of the judicial authority and the independence of the judiciary to negate the judicial directive. Allowing to be offended, “he wrote.