The SC judges who dissented to the CJP's suo motu on Punjab elections seem to have revolted against the use of his discretionary powers to structure other institutes.
"If it's done, it needs to be proved whether there were such circumstances that warranted the decision," journalist Umar Cheema said.
The dissenting judges also seem to be against certain suo motu notices and the decision to constitute benches, he said during a podcast on Monday.
At this, Syed quoted the example of neighboring India where the country's top court's judges revolted against the CJP, who eventually had to listen to them to address their reservations.
Cheema added that if the CJP doesn't listen to his judges, the situation may escalate in the days ahead.
"This is good in a way because it will make room for a difference of opinion and prevent concentration of power," he said.
Earlier today, two judges of the Supreme Court released a 27-page order, stating that the suo motu case on the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa stands dismissed.
In their decision, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the case was dismissed by a majority of four judges out of the total seven.
“We find it essential to underline that in order to strengthen our institution and to ensure public trust and public confidence in our Court, it is high time that we revisit the power of one man show enjoyed by the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan” the order read.
It went on to add that “his court cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice, but must be regulated through a rule-based system approved by all judges of the court under Article 191 of the Constitution.”
On March 1, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered that elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa must take place within the next 90 days.
Justice Shah and Justice Jamal Mandokhail dissented from the majority’s decision, leaving the judgment split 3-2. The decision was endorsed by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
"If it's done, it needs to be proved whether there were such circumstances that warranted the decision," journalist Umar Cheema said.
The dissenting judges also seem to be against certain suo motu notices and the decision to constitute benches, he said during a podcast on Monday.
At this, Syed quoted the example of neighboring India where the country's top court's judges revolted against the CJP, who eventually had to listen to them to address their reservations.
Cheema added that if the CJP doesn't listen to his judges, the situation may escalate in the days ahead.
"This is good in a way because it will make room for a difference of opinion and prevent concentration of power," he said.
Earlier today, two judges of the Supreme Court released a 27-page order, stating that the suo motu case on the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa stands dismissed.
In their decision, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the case was dismissed by a majority of four judges out of the total seven.
“We find it essential to underline that in order to strengthen our institution and to ensure public trust and public confidence in our Court, it is high time that we revisit the power of one man show enjoyed by the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan” the order read.
It went on to add that “his court cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice, but must be regulated through a rule-based system approved by all judges of the court under Article 191 of the Constitution.”
On March 1, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered that elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa must take place within the next 90 days.
Justice Shah and Justice Jamal Mandokhail dissented from the majority’s decision, leaving the judgment split 3-2. The decision was endorsed by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.