ISLAMABAD: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on Friday said the Supreme Court’s constitution bench now has the authority to consider its own motu, a power once held by the country’s chief justice.

“Mr. Lawyer, only the procedure has changed after the Constitutional (26th) Amendment. The Supreme Court still retains its power to consider ‘suo motu’. The only difference now is that suo motu cases will be conducted before a constitutional institution ” said Judge Mazhar. to a lawyer during the hearing of an anti-terrorism case.

The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Friday heard 16 cases pending for a long time in the supreme court.

Several cases were settled, hearings of a few cases were adjourned by issuing notices and some crucial remarks were made by the court during the hearings of the cases.

The new court, constituted under the 26th constitutional amendment, held the first hearing of the cases on Thursday with the aim of clearing the large backlog and providing justice to the petitioners.

The bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan had to hear around 34 cases as per the case list for November 14 and 15. Eighteen of those cases were scheduled for Thursday, with the other 16 set for Friday (today).

Headed by Justice Khan, the constitution bench includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

Following the conclusion of today’s cases, the SC constitutional bench issued its list of cases between November 18-22.

The plea regarding the mandatory declaration of inclusion of independent candidates in a political party has been fixed for hearing on November 18, while a hearing on a petition challenging the declaration of the Sunni Ittehad Council as a parliamentary party will be held on November 20.

Private use of Islamabad Convention Centre

The first hearing heard the case regarding the private use of the Islamabad Convention Centre. During the procedure, the constitutional court requested an answer from the General Prosecutor’s Office in this regard.

Justice Mazhar noted that a notice was also issued to a former prime minister as part of this suo motu case. Justice Mandokhail ordered that the convention center be managed as per the institution’s policy.

The Additional Solicitor General asked for time to gather information on the outstanding dues, to which Justice Aminuddin replied, “Get the information and update the court.”

Later, the court adjourned the hearing.

Recovery of embezzled funds

During the hearing on the case related to undisclosed foreign bank accounts and recovery of embezzled funds, lawyer Hafiz Ahsan argued that changes have been made to the income tax law.

He stated that proceedings regarding the undisclosed accounts and recovery actions are ongoing in the court process. Justice Mazhar noted that orders have been issued for reports from all relevant agencies, including FIA and FBR, in the case.

Counsel for FBR submitted that this issue primarily pertains to FBR and FIA and other agencies are not involved.

Justice Mazhar noted that if there is a move to close the case, a report should be provided. The court asked FIA and FBR to submit a report on the undisclosed foreign bank accounts. The court further sought reports from the relevant institutions on the recovery of the embezzled funds and adjourned the hearing for two weeks.

Former People’s Advocate granted time in contempt case

Meanwhile, the constitutional court of the Supreme Court granted additional time for the lawyer representing the Federal People’s Advocate to file a response.

Justice Aminuddin noted that former federal ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi did not appear before the court, although Justice Mazhar pointed out that she had previously attended hearings in person.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail noted that Abbasi is no longer the federal attorney, questioning why the court should continue to focus on a former official.

Justice Hilali raised the issue of whether the federal ombudsman’s proceedings can be challenged in the high court. Judge Aminuddin clarified that if any forum acts outside 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 in the case.

Justice Mazhar said Abbasi should be notified and informed of the proceedings, adding that the ombudsman continued the case despite the court’s stay order, which amounted to contempt of court.

Justice Mandokhail ordered that a notice be issued to the current federal ombudsman to clarify whether they wish to proceed with the matter or withdraw it.

The court ordered counsel for the Federal People’s Advocate to give instructions and file a response, adjourning the hearing.

Earlier, former Lahore High Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had ordered the Federal Ombudsman to drop proceedings in a harassment case against a woman.

Despite this, the ombudsperson issued a contempt notice and arrest warrants against Judge Mansoor, heightening tensions between the Federal Ombudsman and the judiciary.

The problem of authority

During the hearing of a suo motu case related to anti-terrorism, advocate Munir Paracha argued that no further proceedings were necessary in the case.

He stated that following the 26th constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court no longer had the authority to consider it.

Justice Mazhar noted that only the procedure changed after the amendment and the Supreme Court could still take it into consideration.

The difference, he said, is that such notifications will now be handled by a constitutional bench. He emphasized that it is important to understand that a constitutional bench retains its authority to consider.

Justice Mandokhail added that the matter will be taken up in another case when it arises. The court later settled the case.

the IT university problem

During the hearing of a case regarding the establishment of an IT university in Islamabad, CDA advocate Munir Paracha argued that land for educational purposes cannot be allotted without the approval of the federal cabinet.

He added that the land in Sector I-17 could be earmarked after obtaining the necessary clearance. Judge Hilali noted that it appeared someone else had their eyes on the ground, and their intentions seemed dubious.

Justice Mandokhail suggested referring the matter to the SIFC (Special Investment Facilitation Council). Justice Hilali further expressed his desire that the university should be established so that people can benefit from education.

Petitioner’s lawyer Salman Butt argued that foreign investors are under the impression that they are only invited to invest and then asked to leave. The court ordered the parties to settle the case amicably and adjourned the hearing for 10 days.

Judge Hilali emphasized the need to make efforts to solve the problem.

Lady health worker

During the hearing of the petitions filed by the women health workers against the Sindh government, the Advocate General of Sindh appeared through a video link before the constitutional body and said that the regularization was done as per the court orders.

He submitted that this case does not fall within the category of section 146(3). Justice Mazhar asked why regularization is not a matter of fundamental rights.

He asked the advocate general to explain the structure that the Sindh government had set up for women health workers, saying that their statement would be recorded, ensuring that all service benefits would be provided.

The Advocate General of Sindh replied that the petitioner has acknowledged the implementation of the court order.

The court noted that since the petitioner’s lawyer and AOR (Advocate on Record) were absent, notices will be issued to them, and the case will be tried together with similar cases.

The Constitutional Court postponed the meeting indefinitely.

While hearing a case granting right of appeal to judicial employees, Justice Mandokhail observed that formulation of rules is the responsibility of competent high courts.

He further stated that an application cannot be filed under section 199, subsection 5. The court issued notices to the parties and adjourned the hearing.