The Supreme Court’s six-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard 18 cases in just an hour and a half in its first sitting on Thursday, disposed of 16 of them, issued a re-hearing notice in another and sought a report in one case.
It also issued fines of Rs20,000 each on three frivolous applicants.
Judgment and order case
In the judgment and order case, the bench disposed of the plea by declaring it ineffective while clarifying the authority of parliament to legislate. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman requested a review to the extent of the question raised on parliament's authority, but Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel indicated that the matter was now ineffective.
"Now you have also amended the Constitution," he remarked with a smile. Justice Aminuddin remarked that in the Practice and Procedure Act case, the Supreme Court had recognized the legislative authority of parliament.
Maulvi Iqbal Haider case
The court dismissed a petition challenging a five-year entry ban on Maulvi Iqbal Haider into the Supreme Court, after determining that the ban had expired. Justice Mandokhel inquired if Haider had come in with the intention to extend the restriction, to which he responded that he had no such intention.
Marriages of lawmakers, govt officials with foreigners
Another dismissed petition sought to ban marriages between lawmakers and government officials and foreigners, with Justices Mazhar and Mandokhel clarifying that this matter was legislative, and did not fall under judicial authority. "How can the court stop someone from getting married?" asked Justice Mandokhel.
Also Read: Supreme Court's constitutional bench starts hearing long-pending cases
The petitioner was also fined Rs20,000. Justice Mazhar questioned under which law marriages can be banned. Justice Mandokhel remarked that tomorrow someone would want a ban on those marrying twice or single individuals. "Can a government employee be stopped from marrying a foreigner?" asked Justice Mazhar, observing that if there was law regarding this then the court should be informed about it.
Illegal assets and foreign accounts
Similarly, the court also dismissed a petition regarding foreign assets and bank accounts with a penalty, saying that legislative power rests with parliament. Justice Aminuddin Khan directed the petitioner to approach their elected representatives for legislation on this matter.
Justice Mandokhel asked how the election commission could legislate on foreign account and assets. The petitioner argued that contesting election on illegal assets and bank accounts should not be allowed. Justice Mazhar remarked that legislation on this matter was the job of parliament, adding that the court could not ask parliament to legislate.
PDM-era legislation
The bench also dismissed a petition demanding the annulment of legislation passed under the previous PDM government, imposing a fine of Rs20,000 on the petitioner for what the court classified as a frivolous case.
Rescheduling general elections 2024
In addition, a petition seeking rescheduling of the 2024 general elections was deemed irrelevant and disposed of as being infructuous. Elections have been held, therefore this application had become ineffective, said the additional attorney general.
Justice Mandokhel remarked that the lawyer did not appear in court and should be fined. The petition had sought to delay the general elections to March instead of February due to bad weather.
Arif Alvi's appointment as president
Lastly, the court issued a rehearing notice on a petition challenging the appointment of Arif Alvi as the president. Court staff noted that a prior notice to the petitioner had not been delivered, leading the court to adjourn the hearing and reissue the notice.
"Only the dismissal of such applications with a penalty will discourage them," Justice Mandokhel remarked.
