——– Adds Apex Court can still take suo motu notice, only procedure has changed
——– Mandokhail directs to operate convention centre as per policy
——– Information regarding undisclosed foreign bank accounts sought
——– Constitutional bench conducts hearing on 16 pending cases
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: In a fresh development, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar has said that the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench now has the power to take suo motu notices — an authority that once rested with the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP).
During a hearing of an anti-terrorism case on Friday, Justice Mazhar told a counsel: “Mr advocate, only the procedure has changed after the [26th Constitutional] Amendment. The Supreme Court still re-tains the authority to take suo motu notice. The only difference now is that suo motu cases will pro-ceed before a constitutional bench.”
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court heard 16 cases pending for a long time in the apex court on Friday. Multiple cases were disposed of, hearings of a few cases were adjourned by issuing notices, and sev-eral crucial remarks were made by the bench during the case hearings.
The new bench, constituted under the 26th Constitutional Amendment, held its first-ever hearing of cases on Thursday, aiming to clear the large backlog and provide justice to petitioners.
The Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan-led bench had to hear around 34 cases as per the cause list for Novem-ber 14 and 15. Eighteen of these cases were scheduled for Thursday and the remaining 16 set for Fri-day (today). With Justice Khan in the lead, the constitutional bench includes Justice Jamal Khan Man-dokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Jus-tice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. Following the conclusion of the hearing of today’s cases, the SC constitutional bench has issued its cause list from November 18 to 22. The plea pertaining to declaring the inclusion of independent can-didates in a political party as mandatory has been fixed for hearing on November 18, whereas, a hear-ing on a petition challenging the Sunni Ittehad Council’s declaring as a parliamentary party will be held on November 20.
The bench first heard the case regarding the private use of the Islamabad Convention Centre. During the proceedings, the constitutional bench sought a response from the Attorney General’s office on the matter. Justice Mazhar noted that a notice had also been issued to a former prime minister as part of this suo motu case. Justice Mandokhail directed that the convention centre should be managed ac-cording to the institution’s policy.
The additional attorney general requested time to gather information regarding outstanding dues, to which Justice Aminuddin responded, “Obtain the information and update the court”.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing.
During the hearing on the case related to undisclosed foreign bank accounts and recovery of embez-zled funds, Advocate Hafiz Ahsan argued that amendments have been made to the income tax law.
He stated that proceedings concerning undisclosed accounts and recovery actions are underway through the legal process. Justice Mazhar noted that orders had been issued for reports from all rele-vant agencies, including the FIA and FBR, in this case.
The FBR’s counsel maintained that this matter primarily concerns the FBR and FIA, and other agencies are not involved.
Justice Mazhar remarked that if there is a move to close the case, a report should be provided. The court has requested the FIA and FBR to submit a report regarding undisclosed foreign bank accounts. Additionally, the court has demanded reports from relevant institutions on the recovery of embezzled funds and has adjourned the hearing for two weeks.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench granted additional time for the counsel repre-senting the Federal Ombudsperson to submit a response.
Justice Aminuddin noted that former federal ombudsperson Yasmin Abbasi did not appear before the court, although Justice Mazhar highlighted that she had previously attended hearings in person.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that Abbasi is no longer the federal ombudsperson, questioning why the court should continue to focus on a former official.
Justice Hilali raised the issue of whether the federal ombudsperson’s proceedings can be challenged in the high court. Justice Aminuddin clarified that if any forum acts beyond its authority, the high court has jurisdiction.
Justice Mazhar added that the matter remains unresolved and pointed out that the Lahore High Court had issued arrest warrants for a judge during this case.
Justice Mazhar stated that Abbasi should be notified and informed about the proceedings, adding that the ombudsperson continued the case despite a high court stay order, constituting contempt of court.
Justice Mandokhail instructed that a notice be issued to the current Federal Ombudsperson to clarify whether they wish to proceed with the matter or withdraw it.
The court ordered the counsel for the Federal Ombudsperson to provide instructions and submit a response, adjourning the hearing.
Previously, Lahore High Court’s former judge, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, had directed the Federal Om-budsperson to stop proceedings in a harassment case against a woman.
Despite this, the ombudsperson had issued a contempt notice and arrest warrants against Justice Mansoor, escalating tensions between the Federal Ombudsperson and the judiciary.
During the hearing of a suo motu case related to anti-terrorism, lawyer Munir Paracha argued that fur-ther proceedings in the case were unnecessary.
He stated that following the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court no longer had the authority to take suo motu notice.
Justice Mazhar remarked that only the procedure had changed after the amendment, and the Su-preme Court could still take suo motu notice.
The difference, he clarified, was that such notices would now be handled by a constitutional bench. He emphasised that it is important to understand that a constitutional bench retains the authority to take suo motu notice.
Justice Mandokhail added that the issue would be addressed in another case when it arises. The court subsequently disposed of the case.
During the hearing of a case regarding the establishment of an IT university in Islamabad, CDA lawyer Munir Paracha argued that land for educational purposes could not be allotted without the approval of the federal cabinet.
He added that land in Sector I-17 could be provided after obtaining the necessary approval. Justice Hi-lali remarked that it appeared someone else had their eye on the land, and their intentions seemed dubious.
Justice Mandokhail suggested referring the matter to the SIFC (Special Investment Facilitation Coun-cil). Justice Hilali further expressed a desire for the university to be established so that people could benefit from education.
The petitioner’s lawyer, Salman Butt, argued that foreign investors are left with the impression that they are invited only to invest and then asked to leave. The court instructed the parties to resolve the matter amicably and adjourned the hearing for 10 days.
Justice Hilali emphasised the need to make efforts to resolve the issue.
During the hearing of petitions filed by lady health workers against the Sindh government, the Advo-cate General of Sindh appeared via video link before the constitutional bench and stated that regulari-sation had been carried out in compliance with court orders.
He argued that this case does not fall under the category of Section 146(3). Justice Mazhar inquired why regularisation is not a matter of fundamental rights.
He asked the advocate general to explain the structure the Sindh government has established for lady health workers, saying that their statement would be recorded, ensuring that all service benefits would be provided.
The advocate general of Sindh responded that the petitioner had acknowledged the implementation of the court’s order.
The court remarked that since the petitioner’s lawyer and AOR (Advocate on Record) were absent, notices would be issued to them, and the case would be heard together with similar cases.
The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
During the hearing of a case granting appeal rights to judicial employees, Justice Mandokhail remarked that formulating rules is the responsibility of the relevant high courts.
He further stated that a petition cannot be filed under Article 199, Sub-section 5. The court issued no-tices to the parties and adjourned the hearing.
