SC permits live streaming of reserved seats case

#permits #live #streaming #reserved #seats #case

ISLAMABAD: On Thursday, a direct series of proceedings in the case of specific seats was allowed by the Supreme Court Constitutional Bench, while instructions were issued to the IT department for necessary arrangements.

A brief order was announced by the court on several petitions filed by the Sunni Utthatd Council (SIC), while rejecting several relevant requests, including objections to the formation of the bench and a request to hear the 26th constitutional amendment case before the issue of reserved seats.

After the 26th Amendment petitions, the Supreme Court also rejected the request to postpone the hearing of the reserved seats.

The court made it clear that the hearing would proceed as a schedule and postpone the proceedings till Monday.

A detailed decision will be issued later, while a short order has already been announced in court.

Today’s hearing

During the hearing on the petitions for review of the specific seats in the Supreme Court, a large bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed proceedings.

Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, who represents the women affected by the Supreme Court’s July 12 decision, completed his arguments on the objections raised by the SIC.

Makhdoom claimed that Article 191-A and the Supreme Court (practice and procedures) subdue the application of the 1980s in matters related to the formation of Act benches.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked the lawyer to tell what the provisions of the 1980 rules contradict the new constitutional amendment.

In response, Makhdoom maintained that the rules of 1980 contradict the latest constitutional framework, especially with reference to the scope of review hearing.

He noted that the new constitutional amendment outlined the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench, while under the rules of 1980, the review requests were heard by the original bench.

He argued that after the 26th Amendment, constitutional interpretation cases should be reviewed through a constitutional bench.

Makhdoom further challenged the number of judges on the existing bench, and said, in his view, it should be considered a 13 -member bench, not 11. In such a bench, the majority decision will require at least seven judges, he said.

He also said that a petition was filed for the direct broadcast of the case and if the court should decide in favor of a direct series, the SIC had no objection.

Another request was also submitted, until the 26th Amendment was decided, the court was asked to postpone the proceedings. However, Makhdoom Ali Khan stressed that there was no court applicant to decide the schedule of the cases.

He warned that if the request for postponement was approved, the Constitutional Bench would be unable to hear any request till the 26th Amendment case was decided. He said it would set an example, and encourage other applicants to make similar requests based on personal priorities.

SIC lawyer’s apology

When Mukhum began to rise after the end of his arguments, SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui went ahead, and screaming whether the 26th Amendment had abolished the right to refuse.

Justice Aminuddin calmly said that the court had heard it and suggested in writing in writing. Siddiqui repeated his claim, forcing the judge to ask why he was attributing the words of the court.

Senior lawyer Makhdoom remarked that the council had no legal status and should not be heard. Siddiqui angrily asked why he was then made the party in this matter.

Justice Mandokil intervened, and asked Siddiqui not to address the senior lawyer directly. Siddiqui apologized for a ten -minute request to warn about future complications.

During the exchange, Attorney General Mansoor Owen was seen smiling quietly. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted the threat of endless operations if the new judges continued to leave.

Later, Hamid Khan, another lawyer for the Sunni Attaad Council, stressed that the series should be continued directly during the first hearing to avoid public doubts.

The bench got up for consultation and returned with a short order about 40 minutes later. Justice Mandokhel told Siddiqui that his behavior was inappropriate, to which Siddiqui responded with apology.