ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the extension of the army chief’s tenure to five years due to non-prosecution.
The federal government earlier this month amended Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the Pakistan Navy Ordinance, 1961, and the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, extending the fixed tenure of the services chiefs up to five years. This legislation received strong support in both houses of parliament, passing with a majority vote in the National Assembly and the Senate.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on Tuesday, heard an appeal of Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, and other constitutional cases.
The SC Registrar’s Office had raised objections on the petition of Naqvi, who challenged the extension of the army chief’s term. Despite multiple notices, Naqvi did not appear before the bench.
The Registrar’s Office had raised objections to the maintainability of the petition, wherein, it was contended that the recent amendments to the Army Act violated constitutional limits on military service extensions.
As the petitioner failed to appear to address these objections or argue the case, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The bench noted the absence as a significant lapse, adding that the petitioner’s lack of engagement with the court’s notices demonstrated a lack of intent to pursue the matter seriously.
During the proceedings of a case related to tax levy in ghee mills, Justice Mazhar explained that after 26th Amendment this bench is the Full Court. Justice Mandokhail supporting the statement of Justice Mazhar said this bench be considered the Full Court.
The Court transferred two cases back to a regular bench, which was referred by a three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. The senior puisne judge had transferred the cases to the constitutional bench.
During the proceedings, Justice Ayesha clarified that the petitioner’s lawyer had requested that the case be sent to the constitutional bench, and it was done on his request.
Justice Mazhar expressed that not every case should be sent to the constitutional bench, suggesting that cases involving constitutional questions should be the exception.
Justice Ayesha noted that cases often shift from one bench to another, highlighting the complexities involved in such transfers.
The lawyer for the opposing party had requested that the case be referred to the constitutional bench, though the petitioner’s lawyer, Salman Aslam, clarified that they had not made such a request.
The bench also held a hearing on a case involving the registration of two first information reports (FIRs) for a single incident.
The court declared the petition inadmissible and subsequently dismissed it.
Justice Mandokhail highlighted that cases like these have significantly contributed to the backlog of 60,000 pending cases in the judiciary.
He also remarked that the court is repeatedly reminded of this mounting number and questioned why the petition should not be dismissed with a penalty.
Addressing the petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession, Justice Mandokhail criticised the filing of such cases.
Justice Mazhar referring Sughran Bibi’s case noted that the court had already ruled on the matter. He further questioned the petitioner on why they had not approached the High Court to seek the dismissal of the second FIR.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.