Islamabad:
The Ittehad Sunnita Council (sic) asked the Supreme Court to postpone the procedures in the case of the seats reserved until a decision on the challenges to the 26th constitutional amendment is reached.
The SIC and its president, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, submitted three requests before the Apex court, looking for a live broadcast of the judicial procedures and a reconstitution of the current review bank, proposing to be replaced with the original 12 judges bank that ruled on July 12, 2024, in favor of PTI’s claim to all reserved seats.
A Constitutional Bank of 11 members is scheduled to resume audiences of review requests on Monday.
One of the applications indicates that a large number of requests that challenge the 26th amendment are currently pending before SC.
“The recently added article 191a (5) establishes that all requests, appeals or reviews of the requests against judgments issued or approved orders, to which the clause (3) is applied, slope or presented in the Supreme Court before the beginning of the law of the Constitution (twenty -senior amendment), 2024, by the Bank of the Constitution and the Constitution of the Constitution).
The request argues that there is a marked and well established difference between an appeal and a review jurisdiction, since the Bank itself listens to a request or request for review that approved the sentence.
“An appeal is a continuation of the original procedures, while the revision jurisdiction is governed by article 188 of the Constitution read with the rules of the Supreme Court, 1980. It is presented that rule 8 of Order XXVI of the rules of the Supreme Court, 1980 establishes that, as far as possible, a request for review will be published before the same place that the trial issued.”
It is argued that, since article 188 expressly establishes that said jurisdiction will be exercised in accordance with the rules, which require the same bank to be heard by the same bank (5) listening to a request for review that issued the trial, and that it is the original provision approved by the Constituent Assembly, there is a patent conflict with article 191a (5).
It is argued that the latter, which was approved by Majlis-E-Shora (Parliament), lacks legitimacy and moral authority.
Therefore, the last provision, to the extent that it makes requests for revision before the Constitutional Bank, is null and ultra vires the Constitution.
“Other other, the amendment power under article 239 of the Constitution will be exercised as a sacred trust, as ordered by the preamble of the Constitution. Article 191a (5) mentioned above, added through the 26th amendment, including the provision related to the hearing of the requests for review of the exemption of the Constitution and the retrospective effect given, with respect, with respect, with respect, with respect, with respect, with respect, with respect. Frequent, in view of the review element, the conclusion of the presentation of the presentation and was given the retrospective effect, with the use of Utmost, to the provision of the audience to review the election of the election.
The petition also argues that the right to a fair trial has been specifically raised in the petition that challenges the vices of the 26th amendment.
It is also stated that article 191a (5), to the extent that it transfers the jurisdiction of review of the Constitutional Bank, is in conflict with article 10 of the Constitution and, therefore, null.
“Article 191a (5) of the Constitution, by which the difference between an appeal and a request for review and the jurisdiction of the bank that approved the sentence has been eliminated to undo to said judgment of July 12, 2024, is evident against the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law.”
The application also establishes that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which constitutes the Constitutional Bank, is practically under the control of the Executive and can influence the exercise of the jurisdiction of the SC.
He points out that the most senior judges of the Superior Court have not been included in the constitutional banks formed in recent months, which compromises judicial independence.
