Home » National » Solely CJP can take suo motu notices, says SC because it wraps up petition in opposition to journalists’ harassment

Solely CJP can take suo motu notices, says SC because it wraps up petition in opposition to journalists’ harassment

by Pakistan Latest News Update

The Supreme Courtroom on Thursday wrapped up the matter of a suo motu discover taken by a bench of the apex court docket in opposition to the harassment of journalists, ruling in a written judgment that the authority to take action rests solely with the chief justice of Pakistan.

A two-member bench of the apex court docket comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, whereas listening to one other matter, took up the problem on August 20 when former president of the Press Affiliation of the Supreme Courtroom (PAS), Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui, delivered to the court docket’s discover an utility over the alleged harassment of journalists.
The court docket directed submitting a petition which was later filed by petitioners Imran Shafqat and Aamir Mir together with the Press Affiliation of Supreme Courtroom (PAS).
The court docket held that harassing journalists and depriving them of performing their skilled obligations is a matter of public significance, because the Structure ensures freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Filed underneath Article 184(3) of the Structure, the petition requested the apex court docket to provoke motion to make sure their basic rights and take motion in opposition to all those that are violating them.
In an order issued on August 20, the SC summoned the director common of the Federal Investigation Company (FIA), the Islamabad police chief in addition to the secretaries of inside, info and non secular affairs on August 26.
Nonetheless, the following day a five-judge SC bench was constituted, headed by Performing Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial,and together with Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmad and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, to offer readability with regard to the court docket’s suo motu jurisdiction.
The brand new bench, on Monday, put the August 20 order in abeyance, observing that its implementation might “obscure and unsettle the practice of invoking suo motu jurisdiction”.
The August 20 order now stands withdrawn, the SC mentioned in its written judgment right now.
Based on the judgment, no bench can take a suo motu discover with out express permission from the chief justice, and order an inquiry by any competent authority.
The judgment went on to state {that a} bench might advocate to the chief justice to take suo motu discover however can’t accomplish that by itself.
It additional acknowledged that every one such suo motu notices, which have been taken with out the data of the chief justice, hereby stand dismissed. Nonetheless, all pending suo motu circumstances underneath benches arrange by the chief justice will proceed, the judgment mentioned.
It mentioned that now, the PAS petition might be put earlier than the chief justice.
The judgment additionally shed mild the rules of suo motu notices underneath Article 184-Three of the Structure.
An in depth choice on the authority to take up suo motu notices might be issued later, the Supreme Courtroom mentioned.
On Wednesday, in a letter to the CJP, Justice Isa mentioned the two-member bench was not knowledgeable earlier than the five-member bigger bench was constituted.
The Structure of Pakistan lists numerous jurisdictions of the Supreme Courtroom, he mentioned, including that the apex court docket has no jurisdiction to observe the affairs of its personal bench.
A five-member bench has no jurisdiction to listen to the case, Justice Isa mentioned.
If a five-member bigger bench continues listening to the case, it is going to be unconstitutional, he wrote.
Justice Isa argued that after the case was determined, if anybody felt it was not handled in accordance to the Structure, they’d the choice to evaluate it.
He mentioned the Structure doesn’t enable “monitoring jurisdiction”.
Criticising the SC registrar, Justice Isa mentioned that the registrar had acted to “serve the interest of the executive and to protect his colleagues”.
Justice Isa additionally mentioned {that a} copy of his letter must be uploaded on the web site of the Supreme Courtroom.

Source link

You may also like

Leave a Comment