Supreme Court 'divided': Situation sparks new crisis in Pakistan

Chief Justice of Pakistan Supreme Court, Judge Omar Atta Bandiyar, has recently been called a man's drama.



This isn't the first time a leader or activist has used these words on social media but was written in an opposition article written by two senior judges of the Supreme Court.

After the judges said these words, the division in the Supreme Court deepened, while the Bar Association administrators and politicians talked about this issue later. Parliament passed two resolutions against his decision after the presiding judge came under criticism from his own judges for the "unfair" use of jurisdiction and the unilateral warning Notice.

Judges in the country's highest decisions now appear divided, according to legal experts.

But what happened when the jurors began to express their thoughts about each other in their sentences?

The story is a bit complicated but it is enough to examine the Supreme Court's hearings and decisions regarding elections in Punjab cases to understand.

The total number of judges in the Supreme Court is 17, and both judges of the Federal Sharia Court are part of the Supreme Court.

Judge Qazi Faiz Isa is currently the second most senior judge of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The Chief Justice has exclusive powers to control the administration of the Supreme Court.

They can register and sue any matter in Pakistan, also known as suo motu or suo motu law.

Also, many administrative decisions are made by the Chief Justice, such as which judges will hear cases and when a tribunal case will be formed.

It should be noted that the power of self-report is given in Article 184/3 of the Constitution. According to these provisions, the Court of Cassation has the authority to examine any issue that affects the public interest or is contrary to fundamental rights.



Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial presented the suo motu report on the elections in Punjab in February, while in another case, two judges argued that the election issue should be discussed.

Announcing this in the exercise of his powers, the Chief Justice formed a panel of nine judges, thus initiating the case.

But two judges, Judge Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Judge Mazahir Akbar Naqvi, left the pulpit after Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's respected ruling party in government, there is no trust in them.

Then nine seats become seven. But at a later hearing, two of the seven judges, Judges Athar Manullah and Yahya Afridi, withdrew from the bench, saying that the presiding judge could do nothing about it. The presiding judge's power to receive suo motu notice must be preserved.

However, the presiding judge has decided to continue the trial, so now only five members of the jury are sitting.

The Board instructs the Election Commission to announce the election program by a majority vote (three, two) on 1 March. After this decision, it was announced that the elections in Punjab will be held on 30 April.

But two of the five seats, Judge Jamal Mandukhel and Judge Mansoor Ali Shah, did not agree with the decision. The judges used harsh words against the presiding judge, describing him as a "man of the arts", criticizing his suo motu power, and comparing it to his political influence in recent events.

The division in the most important decisions is now presented. The Chief Justice said the decision was a three to two majority decision, but some judges said no, disagreement between the two Judges, Judge Atal Minullah and Judge Yah Hai Ya Afridi, who left the nine-member tribune, also disagreed. the decision in the case. Become a part of it So there will be four or three decisions and the outcome will be different.

However, the Chief Justice complied with the decision, and in line with the Supreme Court's decision, the Election Commission abandoned the election period for Punjab.

However, a few days later, the government refused to hold elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa states, citing insufficient funds and the security situation.

Former Prime Minister Imran Khan's group appealed to the court against the decision and the issue was taken to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice created a new tribune of five judges.

Hearing of this case started, then the senior judge of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa decided after hearing a fourth case, suo motu says the law regarding chief judge is not clear. Until then, all hearings in the Somoto case will be suspended.

Another judge who agreed with his decision was Judge Aminuddin. He is also part of a new five-member board that opposes the no-election committee.

He appeared as a judge at the next hearing of the case. The next morning, while the court was in session, it was seen that the judge's bench was broken again. And this time, another judge, Judge Jamal Mandukhel, left the bench after opposing the presiding judge's decision and the power of suo motu.

However, the presiding judge decided to continue the trial with three judges.

Triumvirate unanimously annulled the Election Commission's decision to postpone the elections and decided to hold the elections in Punjab on 14 May.

On the day of this verdict, the Judge created another picture. The judge member also gave suo motu powers to Judge Qazi Faiz Isa.


'The distinction between judges is clear

While the case is pending at the Supreme Court, the government passed a law limiting the powers of the Attorney General.

Tehreek-e-Insaaf questioned the timing of the bill.

According to legal experts, it is common for courts to disagree, especially the chairs formed by the Supreme Court. This objection is part of the law, but the decision is passed by the majority.

Again, rest breaks are common and can be made for many reasons, for example, if the judges do not want to sit on the bench for some reason, they excuse or 'reject'.

The case before Judge Qazi Faiz Isa

was heard by six Supreme Courts.

Because no other judge can solve the case as a single judge.

In fact, Judges Qazi Faiz Isa and Tariq Masood did not sit as judges in the case on important legal issues. In a similar situation, the exercise of authority was interfered with so that only the Attorney General was authorized to decide on reports.

Referred to a bill recently passed by the government in the National Assembly to change the rules regarding the powers of the Chief Justice.

He said: 184/3 of the Constitution (regulating the automatic notification authority of the Supreme Court). It should be discussed that the article was discussed a lot at that time.

On the other hand, both legal experts and political analysts said that this is a legal issue.

Experts say that if the leaders of the main states do not show intelligence, the political instability in the country may worsen and this may affect the public's trust in the organizations.