Islamabad:
The Constitutional Bank, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, appears in a hurry to advance with the case of the reserved seats, in which, on July 12, most judges argued that PTI is entitled to seats reserved in national and provincial assemblies.
One of the advice they represent next to the defendant expressed surprise at the speed with which the Constitutional Bank continues on this matter. He expressed skepticism that the bank can suspend the majority trial, written by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
The lawyer also questioned the bank for providing only one day for the preparation, which suggests that such has been unusual and raises concerns.
It is crucial to observe that if the Constitutional Bank suspends the order, the reserved seats will be assigned again to the ruling political parties, particularly PMLN and PPP.
There is also a strong speculation within the bar that the Executive could be planning another constitutional amendment to consolidate its domain over the superior judiciary, suppress dissident voices within the institution and facilitate the elevation of the “judges of related ideas.”
Although the ruling parties could introduce an amendment without addressing the issue of reserved seats, the recent acceptance of a review in the case of article 63a allows the vote of defect legislators.
Two judges, Judge Ayesha Malik and Judge Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi, who had dismissed the review requests, have been excluded from the largest bank by the committee led by Judge Aminuddin Khan.
This committee includes Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail and Judge Muhammad Ali Mazahar.
Interestingly, Judge Mazahar was a signatory to the majority decision and also two clarifications issued by the majority judges, led by Judge Shah, during the mandate of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa.
Despite this, he agreed with most judges who have now issued notices to respondents in the case of the reserved seats. He did not provide any comments on the merit of the case during the audience on Tuesday.
Abdul Moiz Jaferii lawyer and the witness of judicial proceedings in the Court Chamber No. 1, commented that it was extraordinary that the hearing took place without the participation of the author judge, Judge Shah.
Jaferii stressed that it was remarkable that the judge who directed the hearing had been censored by the majority in the original decision, now under review. He also noted that notices were issued in a review in which the regulator is openly in violation of the sentence that seeks to have reviewed.
The lawyers believe that this case will be a evidence of fire for the bank’s ability to defend the authority of the Superior Court. The Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP) has deliberately challenged the sentence of the Supreme Court.
Legal experts argue that judges must demonstrate their commitment to respect the decisions of others, since it does not give it to the Executive a free pass to disobey judicial decisions.
Since the approval of the 26th amendment, the Executive has gained significant domain over the Judiciary, a measure that could not have been possible without internal support for the current regime. Now, judges sympathize with the current government are in charge, while those who are not aligned with the government have been marginalized.
The judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad, who have raised their voices against executive interference in judicial functions, face punitive measures in several ways.
Senior judges do not intervene to rescue them. However, the president of the Supreme Court Yahya Afridi has made it clear that the transferred judges will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the Superior Court of Islamabad.
This case is especially important for the independence of the Judiciary. It is widely understood that Judge Shah is being white to issue the decision in the case of the reserved seats.
All eyes are now at today’s hearing of the reserved case, with the expectations that some judges can question the non -implementation of the ECP decision.
