A five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, resumed hearing a case concerning the transfer and seniority of judges in the Islamabad High Court.
The bench also includes Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal, Justice Shakeel Ahmed, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar.
Representing the petitioner judges, senior lawyer Munir A. Malik continued his arguments saying that Article 200(1) of the Constitution cannot be viewed in isolation and must be read in conjunction with Article 200(2). “The transfer of a judge is an executive action, but the question is: how is the executive to exercise this authority?” he asked.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired whether any conditions apply to the executive’s power to order judicial transfers. In response, Munir A. Malik maintained that such executive decisions are subject to judicial review.
Justice Mazhar asked whether Munir A. Malik would be able to conclude his arguments today. Malik responded that he would try. Justice Mazhar noted that if arguments conclude today, another lawyer could begin presenting their case on Monday.
Malik then asked how long the court would be available today. Justice Mazhar explained that since one of the bench members had to leave for Karachi, the case had been scheduled early at 9:30 AM. With May 1 being a public holiday, the case would not resume until after that. The hearing was adjourned until 9:30 AM on May 7.
Audio Leaks Commission as Infructuous
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday dismissed petitions challenging the formation of the alleged audio leaks commission, declaring the matter infructuous.
A five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin ud Din Khan heard the case. The bench included Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and three other justices. During the proceedings, senior lawyer Hamid Khan appeared on behalf of the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Justice Amin ud Din Khan remarked that the audio leaks commission has become inactive, rendering the case ineffective. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the head of the commission, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, has since retired, while the other two commission members are now serving as judges of the Supreme Court.
Hamid Khan argued that it was up to the Attorney General to clarify whether the government intended to form a new commission on the audio leaks. However, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the court that the Attorney General was currently engaged with another bench.
Justice Mazhar further stated that even if the federal government were to form a new commission, the current case would still be considered ineffective.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions challenging the formation of the audio leaks commission on grounds of being no longer applicable.
Student Unions
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday sought a detailed report regarding the committee formed to devise a framework for the restoration of student unions in educational institutions.
A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case challenging the long-standing ban on student unions.
During the hearing, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the court that the government had constituted a committee to formulate a mechanism for restoring student unions, and an interim report had already been submitted.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that in the past, student wings of political parties existed across all universities.
He emphasized that any new system should be designed in a way that ensures student representation remains limited to their respective universities.
He further noted that the issue primarily concerns public universities, as private institutions generally do not face such problems. Justice Mazhar added that forming a student welfare association is entirely different from establishing political party wings. “If political wings are allowed, political flags will inevitably make their way onto campuses,” he warned.
The court directed the government to submit a comprehensive report on the progress and recommendations of the committee and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
Teaching of Holy Quran
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday granted additional time to the governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Sindh to submit their responses in a case seeking to make the teaching of the Holy Quran compulsory in schools.
The case was heard by a five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin ud Din Khan. During the hearing, Justice Aminuddin inquired about the stance of the KP and Sindh governments on the matter.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi noted that in Sindh, the first period in school is already dedicated to Islamic Studies and Nazra (Quranic recitation). “Even 55 years ago, our first period used to be Islamic Studies,” he remarked.
Justice Amin pointed out that KP and Sindh had not yet submitted their written replies and directed that they do so.
Granting time to both provincial governments for submission, the court adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
Katchi Abadi Case
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday summoned the Chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), the Member Planning CDA, and the Secretary of the Law and Justice Commission in a case concerning informal settlements (katchi abadis) in Islamabad.
The hearing was conducted by five-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Amin ud Din Khan. During the course of proceedings, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned the CDA’s policy regarding katchi abadis, noting that a dedicated Katchi Abadi Act already exists in Sindh.
CDA’s legal counsel, Munir Paracha, argued that it is the federal government’s responsibility to legislate on the matter. However, Justice Mazhar responded that it was the CDA’s duty to propose relevant legislation to the federal government.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi expressed concern, noting the presence of informal settlements even near the Diplomatic Enclave. The CDA lawyer acknowledged that some katchi abadis are recognized by the authority.
Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned the legal basis for selectively recognizing some settlements while ignoring others. Justice Jamal Mandokhail further asked the CDA counsel to define what qualifies as a katchi abadi. “If it means mud houses, then 90 percent of Balochistan would qualify,” he said.
Justice Rizvi noted that the Supreme Court had ordered legislation on the issue back in 2016. Justice Mazhar pointed out that the case has been pending since 2015, yet no significant progress has been made in the past decade.
The CDA’s lawyer argued that due to a court-issued stay order, both informal settlements and encroachments in Islamabad have increased. Justice Mazhar responded, “The real issue is that contempt proceedings should have been initiated against CDA.”
The lawyer countered that CDA has been participating in every meeting of the committee established under the Law and Justice Commission following the Supreme Court’s directive.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that those residing in these areas from the beginning may have a claim to ownership, while later arrivals could be considered informal settlers. Justice Mazhar criticized the CDA’s apparent “pick and choose” policy regarding settlements.
Justice Rizvi also questioned the original purpose for which the land was allotted, adding that these settlements have not sprung up overnight-residents have been living there for 10 to 15 years.
Justice Mazhar emphasized that despite several detailed orders issued by the court since 2016, they have not been implemented. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the court that five to six meetings have taken place since the 2016 directive.
Justice Mazhar asked why those meetings failed to yield results and demanded the official meeting minutes. Justice Mandokhail suggested that CDA must find a solution without disturbing Islamabad’s master plan.
The court summoned the CDA Chairman, Member Planning, and Secretary of the Law and Justice Commission for the next hearing. It also directed authorities to submit the minutes of the working committee meetings on katchi abadis. The hearing was adjourned indefinitely.
