The six-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, continued to hear multiple cases on the second day as well.

The bench disposed of four cases and issued notices in two others.

During the hearing of a suo motu notice on an anti-terrorism case, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified that the apex court retains the authority to take suo motu notice, only the procedure had changed. He added that the only difference was that after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, suo motu cases would be fixed before the constitutional bench.

“Keep in mind that the constitutional bench can take suo motu notice,” Justice Mazhar told the petitioner’s lawyer, Munir Piracha.

Earlier during the hearing, Piracha told the court no further action was required in the case, adding that after the 26th amendment, the Supreme Court cannot take suo motu notices.

The bench then disposed of the case.

Furthermore, the bench adjourned hearings related to the service structure of lady health workers after consolidating all similar cases and issuing notices to the parties involved.

In a suo motu notice case regarding the private use of Islamabad’s Convention Centre, the bench disposed of the case after the additional attorney general informed it that the expenses incurred on the PTI's event at the centre had been paid after the ceremony to the CDA.

“Run the Convention Centre according to the institution's policy,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked.

The bench deferred the proceedings for two weeks in another case regarding the concealment of foreign bank accounts and recovery of allegedly looted money from abroad. It also sought reports from the FIA and FBR on secret foreign bank accounts as well as recovery of looted money.

Justice Mazhar remarked that orders were issued seeking reports from all agencies, including FIA and FBR.

The FBR counsel told the bench the issue concerned the bureau and FIA, adding that agencies had nothing to do with it.

Moreover, in a contempt case, the constitutional bench gave time to former federal ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi to file a reply and adjourned the matter. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that Ms Abbasi did not appear in court, while Justice Mazhar said she had been appearing in the past hearings in personal capacity. "Yasmin Abbasi is no longer the federal ombudsman, why are we going ahead?" Justice Mandokhel questioned.

Justice Musarrat Hilali asked is the actions of the federal ombudsman can be challenged in a high court. Justice Aminuddin Khan replied that if a forum takes action beyond its authority, the high court had the jurisdiction. The court then ordered the federal ombudsman's lawyer to submit a reply after seeking instructions on the matter.

In the case of giving right of appeal to judicial employees, the court issued notices to the parties concerned. “Making rules is the job of the high courts concerned,” Justice Mandokhel remarked.

In another case related to the fixing of LPG prices, the bench adjourned the hearing till the second week of December. “Two commissions were formed in this case, but it’s not clear under what authority,” Justice Mandokhel said.

The constitutional bench disposed of another case on an appeal under the Banking Ordinance.

Furthermore, in another case related to the establishment of an IT university, the constitutional bench directed the parties to resolve the issues among themselves and adjourned hearing for 10 days.

CDA counsel Munir Piracha said land could not be given away for educational purposes without the approval of the federal cabinet. He added that after the cabinet’s approval, land could be allotted in Sector I17.