(24News) The 6-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court is hearing cases on the second day as well, while 3 cases were disposed of, notices were issued in many cases including former federal ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi’s contempt of court case, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that this Note that the Constitution Bench can take notice automatically.
The 6-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin, heard various cases on the second day today. were
On the contempt of court case against former federal ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court gave time to the federal ombudsman to respond.
Justice Musrat Hilali said that the question is whether the federal ombudsman proceedings can be challenged in the High Court. On which Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that if a forum takes action without authority, the High Court has jurisdiction.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the matter has not become ineffective yet, an arrest warrant has been issued by the judge of Lahore High Court, Yasmin Abbasi should be notified and informed about the proceedings. After the injunction, the Ombudsman’s action was contempt of court, both the Lahore High Court judge and the Federal Ombudsman issued contempt of court notices to each other.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that the notice of contempt of court was issued to the chairperson of the federal ombudsman because Yasmin Abbasi is no longer the federal ombudsman, so notice the current federal ombudsman and he will come and tell.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar then said that Lahore High Court Judge and Federal Ombudsman issued contempt of court notices to each other.
The Constitution Bench adjourned the hearing of the case while ordering the counsel of the Federal Ombudsman to take instructions on the matter and submit a reply.
It should be noted that Federal Ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi was stopped by former Lahore High Court judge Mansoor Ali Shah from harassing the woman.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing for 2 weeks after seeking a report from FIA and FBR in the case of concealment of foreign bank accounts and recovery of looted money.
A 6-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case of concealment of foreign bank accounts and recovery of looted money.
During the hearing, lawyer Hafiz Ehsan presented arguments that the Income Tax Act has been amended, the secret accounts and recovery are being processed under the legal process, on which Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that FIA and FB in the case. Report orders were issued to all agencies including R.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court disposed of the automatic notice case on the anti-terrorism case on the request of the petitioner.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified that the Supreme Court can still take suo motu notice, the only difference is that now the suo motu notice will go to the Constitution Bench.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court disposed of the case on the matter of appeal under the Banking Ordinance.
Hearing of Lady Health Workers Service Structure case adjourned, Al-Jihad Trust vs Federation case dismissed as ineffective.
What are the key implications of the Yasmin Abbasi contempt of court case for accountability in public office?
Interviewer: Welcome to Time.news, where we bring you insightful discussions on the most pressing legal matters of our time. Today, we have the esteemed legal expert, Dr. Anwar Saeed, who specializes in constitutional law. Dr. Saeed, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Saeed: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Interviewer: Let’s dive right into it. The Supreme Court’s six-member constitutional bench is currently hearing several important cases, including the contempt of court case involving former federal ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi. Could you shed some light on the implications of this case?
Dr. Saeed: Certainly. The Yasmin Abbasi case raises significant questions about accountability in public office and the interpretation of court jurisdiction. The fact that notices were issued against her and the current federal ombudsman highlights the complexities when an official’s actions are scrutinized. It symbolizes a check on the exercise of power by holding public officials accountable.
Interviewer: Justice Musrat Hilali brought up a crucial point regarding whether the federal ombudsman’s proceedings can be challenged in the High Court. What are your thoughts on this legal dilemma?
Dr. Saeed: It’s a fascinating question. The crux is the separation of powers and the authority of different legal forums. If a body like the Federal Ombudsman acts beyond its constitutional mandate, then the High Court can indeed intervene. This interplay is vital as it preserves the rule of law by ensuring that no entity operates without oversight.
Interviewer: Justice Aminuddin mentioned that if a forum acts without authority, the High Court has jurisdiction. How does this align with past judicial precedents?
Dr. Saeed: This aligns with established precedents where the High Court has asserted its role in reviewing decisions and actions taken by lower bodies. The judiciary’s responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, making sure that all actions remain within legal boundaries. Past cases have reinforced this principle, ensuring that checks and balances are maintained across various branches of government.
Interviewer: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar stated that an arrest warrant has already been issued by the Lahore High Court related to this case. What does this mean for Yasmin Abbasi and for the public’s perception of the judicial system?
Dr. Saeed: The issuance of an arrest warrant signifies the seriousness of the contempt charges. It conveys that the legal system will not tolerate abuse of power. For the public, this could either restore confidence in the judicial process, illustrating that nobody is above the law, or raise concerns about the political motivations behind such actions. Transparency in how such decisions are made is crucial for public trust.
Interviewer: In light of uncontroversial actions between the Lahore High Court and the federal ombudsman issuing contempt notices to each other, what might be the long-term impact on institutional relations within the judiciary?
Dr. Saeed: This scenario highlights potential friction between different judicial arms. If not addressed, it could lead to confusion and a lack of coherence in legal judgments. Long-term, such instances might necessitate clearer guidelines on jurisdictional boundaries to prevent overlapping authority and maintain respect among institutions. Cooperation and dialogue will be essential to navigate these challenges.
Interviewer: As the bench has adjourned the case while awaiting responses from the involved parties, what steps do you think should be taken next in dealing with such complex legal disputes?
Dr. Saeed: The next steps should include a thorough examination of documented proceedings and clear communication between the parties involved. Each side must prepare comprehensive responses to the court’s inquiries, so that once the hearing resumes, the bench can effectively evaluate the specifics of the case. It’s also essential for the legal community to monitor how this case unfolds, as its outcome could set important precedents for future legal matters.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Saeed, for sharing your insights into this developing situation. Your expertise helps us better understand the intricate dynamics at play within our judicial system.
Dr. Saeed: Thank you for having me. I hope for a fair and just resolution that upholds the principles of our Constitution.
Interviewer: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. Stay with Time.news for more updates on this story and other significant developments in the world of law and politics.