Humayun Khan
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has extended the protective bail of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Khadija Shah and Tehsil Chairman Swabi Attaullah Khan till 15th April, on Wednesday.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Aurangzeb, heard the petition filed by Khadija Shah, while the counsel Alam Khan Adenzai advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner.
The court inquired about reports from the Interior Ministry and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding cases against her. The Assistant Attorney General Dawlat Khan informed the court that the Interior Ministry’s report is still pending, while the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is conducting an inquiry against Khadija Shah in Lahore. NAB’s prosecutor stated that no response has been received from the anti-corruption watchdog.
The court directed the Interior Ministry and NAB to submit their reports and adjourned the hearing until April 15. In a separate case, the court extended the protective bail of Tehsil Chairman Swabi Atta Ullah Khan and directed him to appear before the relevant courts. The Assistant Attorney General informed the court that no cases had been registered against Atta Ullah Khan by the federal government or FIA, but cases were pending against him in Punjab. The court extended protective bail and directed him to appear before the relevant courts in Punjab. The court also disposed of Swabi Tehsil Chairman’s petition.
Court adjourns hearing against appointment of Junior Judges to Supreme Court: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has adjourned the hearing of a petition challenging the appointment of junior judges to the Supreme Court, overlooking senior judges. The counsel Malik Suleman advocate, who argued that the appointment of junior judges is illegal, unconstitutional, and against the decisions of the Supreme Court, on Wednesday.
PHC’s divisional bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Fazal Subhan, heard the petition and adjourned the hearing due to the petitioner’s request for more time to address objections raised by the registrar’s office regarding seniority lists.
The lawyer Malik Suleman argued that the Judicial Commission’s decision on February 10 to appoint junior judges to the Supreme Court, bypassing senior judges, is a violation of Article 227 and Section 224-A as well as General Clauses Act, 1897. He claimed that the appointment of junior judges undermines the independence of the judiciary, which is essential for protector of the fundamental rights.
The petitioner also argued that the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was also appointed bypassing two senior judges, which is unjust and creates the impression that the government is appointing its preferred individuals to key positions. He requested the court to declare the appointment of junior judges as null and void and to direct the Judicial Commission to reconsider the appointments.
The court, after hearing the arguments, postponed the hearing due to the petitioner’s request for more time to address objections raised by the registrar’s office. The court directed the petitioner to submit the necessary documents and adjourned the hearing until further notice.
The petition has sparked a debate about the independence of the judiciary and the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s arguments have raised concerns about the potential politicization of the judiciary and the need for transparency and merit-based appointments. Similarly, in another writ has challenged appointment of Junior Judge as Acting Chief Justice PHC but Registrar Office has raised objection on it.
