Islamabad:
The judge of the Supreme Court, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, warned regular banks that do not exercise jurisdiction in matters related to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution that fall within the domain of the Constitutional Bank under article 191a of the Constitution.
“With all humility to my order and with due reverence, if there is any regular bank, despite the clear and unequivocal constitutional provisions, it assumes too ambitiously jurisdiction or undertakes to decide the alleged controversy based only on the argument of the lawyer of the defendant’s lawyer In a fiscal issue without being -realization, not only would it constitute an illicit exercise of jurisdiction, but also equal to a violation of article 191a of the Constitution.
“The judges have made an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In addition, the Code of Conduct for the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Higher Courts, framed by the Supreme Judicial Council under article 128 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic of Pakistan, 1962 (“Constitution of 1962”) and subsequently amended by virtue of article 209 (8) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, implies a complete submission to the Constitution and, according to She, to the law, “said 20 -the trial of the page created by Judge Mazhar while agreing the decision of the Constitutional Bank in which the two judicial orders of the regular bank were recovered.
A bank from three judges of the Apex Court, led by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, had approved provisional orders for the award of the legal issue as if regular banks could be forbidden to hear the issues related to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution under article 191a of the Constitution.
Despite the judicial orders, the Constitutional Bank Committee had withdrawn the case of the regular bank and the same was solved before the Constitutional Bank. Later, the Constitutional Bank led by Judge Aminuddin Khan also recalled those orders.
However, the Constitutional Bank did not give a reason on how the Committee could withdraw the case in violation of the court order.
Judge Mazhar said that in the current scenario, no bank of this court, except the Constitutional Bank, may exercise: (i) the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 184; (ii) The jurisdiction of appeal of the Supreme Court under clause (3) of article 185, when a sentence or order of a superior court approved by virtue of article 199 implies the constitutionality of any law or a matter of substantial law with respect to respect to the interpretation of the Constitution; and (iii) the advice jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 186.
The accuracy of clause (5) of article 191a dictates that all requests, appeals or review requests against judgments issued or approved orders, to which clause (3) is applied, waiting or submitted in the Supreme Court before the Start of the 26th Stand amendment transferred to constitutional banks and will only be heard and decided by banks constituted under the clause (4).
The phrase “immediately transferred” is explicit and well articulated, without leaving space for any misunderstanding or bewilderment. This phrase cannot be equated with a mere consideration clause that establishes a legal fiction by dealing with something as if it were different from its real state or declaring that certain facts will be taken as established, “said Judge Mazhar.
Regarding the role of two committees that work under the Law on Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court 2023, the SC judge said that two different committees “demonstrate that the first committee, under section 2, is responsible for handling and Fix cases before this Court (regular banks) others that fall within clause (3) of article 191a of the Constitution.
“On the contrary, the committee under section 2a has received jurisdiction to determine if a case falls within clause (3) of article 191a. If it does, the Constitutional Bank must listen to it; if not, the Committee constituted under Section 2 for the fixation and elimination of another bank.
The SC judge also said that it is also clear beyond any shadow of the doubt that both committees have been assigned different roles and responsibilities, without overlapping or annulling the jurisdictional limits of the other, except the common factor that the highest judge From the Senior of the Constitutional Bank, it is also an ex-agent member of the Committee constituted by virtue of section 2 of the Practice and Procedure Law.
“Currently, if a case is within clause (3) of article 191a of the Constitution, the first committee has no jurisdiction to fix that case before a regular bank. The unfair fixation of a case destined for the Constitutional Bank before a Regular Bank, or vice versa, does not create or expand jurisdiction, since the clear distinction has already been established under article 191a of the Constitution.
Judge Mazhar also said that instead of becoming knowledge or assuming jurisdiction or approved any court order for fixation, the best course of action would have been to send the matter to the Committee constituted under section 2 of the Practice and Procedure Law.
“If the committee had found the matter beyond the jurisdiction of a regular bank, it could have referred to the committee formed for the determination of whether a matter must be sent to the Constitutional Bank. Even said committee on its own motion may refer to the matter to the matter Constitutional banks committee for consideration.
“According to the dictates of this scheme of the Constitution, judges in the constitutional banks of the Supreme Court can be nominated from time to time, as determined by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, with the driver that said bank can understand the same number of Judges of each province.
“It is also a matter of registration that after the introduction of constitutional amendments and the constitution of the Constitutional Bank, regular banks and the Constitutional Bank, through mutual cooperation, and being two branches of a tree, transferred cases between them between them for the hearing at the hearing in accordance with their respective jurisdictions, as demarcated under this constitutional scheme. “
Judge Mazhar said that according to subsection (2) of Section 2a of the Practice and Procedure Law, the Supreme Court Registrar is obliged to provide the administrative and sectoral support required to constitutional banks.
“This provision, in my opinion, accentuates the role of the registrar’s office, including the fixing branch, to help the second committee determine the jurisdiction through an order to speak, if a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Bank, it may then be referred to the Committee constituted to decide the fixation of the case before the regular banks of this court.
O Supervision in the case of fixation and branch/concerned officials can be sensitized as the essentials of article 191a of the Constitution so that they do not make any error or misfortune in the future.
“The recklessness or inadvertent of the concerned officials has created an unjustified situation, which leads to misunderstandings without just cause. Therefore, I propose (subject to the approval of the honorable president of the court of this Court) that a” system develops Case management “with the support of the Department of Information Technology (IT) of this Court. Of the fixing branch and the registrar to facilitate a final verification before lists of causes are released to avoid any advertising or errors or errors Inadvertent slippers. At the time of presentation.
“The Constitutional Bank, on 28.01.2025, correctly recalled the orders dated 13.01.2025 and 16.01.2025, approved by the regular bank of this Court, being without jurisdiction and obviously in remembering such orders, the superstrution built in it also also thus collapsed, thus, any procedure taken, approved orders or actions carried out in compliance with the aforementioned orders lose their condition and effect, “he concluded.
