سپریم کورٹ مخصوص نشتوں کا بڑا فیصلہ ! سنی اتحاد کونسل وکیل کی فیصلہ پر کمرہ عدالت میں بد تمیزی

The Supreme Court heard objections filed by the Ittehad Council during a special hearing. The court addressed four petitions, rejecting three related to bench composition and approving one for live streaming. The court's decision emphasized the importance of live streaming for transparency. During the proceedings, an incident occurred where Justice Aminuddin Khan reprimanded a lawyer, Faisal Saddique, for his conduct and tone in court. The lawyer later apologized for his behavior. The court also discussed the inclusion of judges from a previous bench and the implications of the 26th constitutional amendment on the case. The detailed account of the court proceedings was shared, highlighting the court's decisions and the interactions between the judges and the lawyers.

The second paragraph delves into the detailed legal arguments presented in the court. Senior lawyer Faisal Siddiquee raised concerns about the court's order of June 12, pointing out that two judges did not sign it and questioning the validity of the order. He also referenced the Panama case and the role of judges in that context. Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Mohammad Ali Murghar engaged in a dialogue with Siddiquee, discussing the inclusion of judges in the constitutional bench and the implications of their absence. The court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and the need for fairness in trials. The discussion also touched on the live streaming of court proceedings and the need for consistency in how cases are handled. The exchange highlighted the complexities of legal interpretation and the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions.

The third paragraph continues the detailed legal debate within the court. Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the Supreme Court's rules were outdated and conflicted with the new constitutional provisions, specifically Article 191A. He pointed out that the court's Order 26 Rule 8 was no longer applicable due to the changes in the constitution. Khan also discussed the composition of the bench and the numerical strength required to review previous decisions. The judges, including Justice Jamal Khan Manduhol, questioned Khan on the specifics of the legal provisions and the implications of suspending certain articles. The discussion highlighted the tension between the court's traditional rules and the new constitutional amendments, as well as the importance of maintaining legal consistency and fairness in judicial proceedings.

The final paragraph concludes the court proceedings, summarizing the key decisions and future actions. The court announced its decision on the live streaming application, emphasizing that the next hearing would continue with the legal proceedings. The summary highlighted the court's role in balancing transparency through live streaming and the need to adhere to legal procedures. The conclusion also set the stage for the next steps in the case, indicating that the court would continue to address the remaining legal issues and arguments in subsequent hearings.