| Supreme Court of Pakistan | |
|---|---|
| عدالتِ عظمیٰ پاکستان | |
 Emblem of the Supreme Court of Pakistan | |
 Flag of the Supreme Court of Pakistan | |
 Interactive map of Supreme Court of Pakistan | |
| 33°43′41″N73°05′55″E / 33.72806°N 73.09861°E /33.72806; 73.09861 | |
| Established | 14 August 1947; 78 years ago (1947-08-14) |
| Jurisdiction | Civil,criminal, and advisory |
| Location | Red Zone,Islamabad, Pakistan |
| Coordinates | 33°43′41″N73°05′55″E / 33.72806°N 73.09861°E /33.72806; 73.09861 |
| Motto | فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ "So judge between the people in truth" (Quran38:26) |
| Composition method | Judicial Commission of Pakistan |
| Authorised by | Constitution of Pakistan |
| Appeals to | President of Pakistan forClemency/Commutation of sentence |
| Appeals from | High Courts of Pakistan |
| Judge term length | Compulsory retirement at 65 years ofage |
| Number of positions | 25 |
| Website | www.supremecourt.gov.pk |
| Chief Justice of Pakistan | |
| Currently | Yahya Afridi |
| Since | 26 October 2024 |
| Lead position ends | 25 October 2027 |
TheSupreme Court of Pakistan (abbr.SCP;Urdu:عدالتِ عظمیٰ پاکستان,romanized: 'Adālat-e-'Uzmā Pākistān) is the supremejudicial authority and theapex court of theIslamic Republic of Pakistan.[1]
Established in accordance withPart VII of theConstitution of Pakistan, it has ultimate and extensiveappellate,original, andadvisory jurisdictions on allcourts (including thehigh courts,district,special andShariat court), involving issues oflaws and may act on the verdicts rendered on the cases in context in which it enjoys jurisdiction. In thecourt system of Pakistan, the Supreme Court is the finalarbiter of legal disputes and was the final interpreter ofconstitutional law until theTwenty-seventh Amendment created theFederal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, and the highest court of appeal in Pakistan.
Currently, the Supreme Court is incorporated ofChief Justice of Pakistan,twenty-two justices, one Acting judge, twoad hoc judges and two ad-hoc appointments for Shariat Appellate Bench. Once appointed, justices are expected to complete a designated term and then retire at 65 years old, unless their term is terminated through resignation or impeachment by the supreme judicial committee resulted in a presidential reference in regards to the misconduct of judge(s). In theirdiscoursejudgement, the justices are often categorized as having theconservative,textual,moderate, andliberalphilosophies of law in their judicialinterpretation of law and judgements.: 1915 [2]: 436 [3]
The Supreme Court has a permanent seat inIslamabad and meets at theSupreme Court Building at theRed Zone.[4]
| This article is part of the series on the |
| Supreme Court of Pakistan |
|---|
|
| The Court |
| Current membership |
| All members |
In 1861, theBritish government inIndia enacted theIndian High Courts Act that created thehigh courts in all over theIndian subcontinent invarious provinces while abolishing the supreme courtsCalcutta,Bombay,Madras,Lahore, and also thePanchayati system in autonomouspresidencies.: 234 [5]
Until the enactment of theGovernment of India Act 1935 in1935 that created theFederal Court, these new high courts had the distinctionary powers of being the highest Courts for all cases.: 235–236 [5] TheFederal Court had wide range of jurisdictions to resolve disputes between the provinces, presidencies, and theGovernment of India Act 1935, often hearing appeals against judgements of the High Courts.: 44–50 [6]
After thepartition of India in 1947, theFederal Court was also partitioned betweenIndia and Pakistan as JusticeSir Harilal Kania became the firstChief Justice of India and JusticeSir Abdul Rashid becoming the firstChief Justice of Pakistan.: 294 [7]
While the tradition ofBritish law culture continues to remain an integral part of the judiciary, the modern existence of the Supreme Court of Pakistan came when thefirst set of theConstitution of Pakistan was promulgated on 23 March 1956.: 10–11 [8]: 24–26 [9] The ratification of theConstitution of Pakistan reestablished the Supreme Court in 1956, replacing the name "Federal Court" to "Supreme Court", initially had its seat inKarachi where theSindh High Court exists now.[4] In successive years, the Supreme Court was moved toLahore High Court until the Supreme Court was permanently moved into its new building constructed inIslamabad in 1964.[4]
Although the Supreme Court was established pursuant to theGovernment of India Act 1935, the modern structure of the court was reestablished by thesecond set in 1956, and restructured by theConstitution of Pakistan in 1973 where a significant part of theConstitution is dedicated towards the restructuring of the Supreme Court.[8]
The Part VII of theConstitution, ranges from articles 176 through 191, deals with the powers, composition, rules, and responsibilities of the Supreme Court.[10]
These articles concern:
The Part VII of theConstitution of Pakistan reconstituted the composition of Supreme Court and thehigh courts but it does not specify the number of justices to be served in the Supreme Court.[11] Qualifications to be served as a supreme court justice are strictly imposed that are based on merit, personal intellectualism, and experiences as a judge in the high courts.[12]
In 1947, the Supreme Court consisted of aChief Justice and six senior judges fromSindh,Punjab,NWFP,Balochistan, andEast Bengal.: 94–95 [13] Over the several successive years, the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, leading the Supreme Court requesting theParliament to increase the number of judges.[4] As the number of the justices has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as adivision bench[14]), however, coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a constitution bench) when required to settle fundamental questions of law.: 16–17 [8][15]
The nomination of justices in the Supreme Court comes from an executive selection made by thePrime Minister based on judges' merited qualifications, personal intellectualism, and experiences as judge in high courts.[16] ThePresident then confirms the nomination summary and eventually appoints theChief Justice and judges in the Supreme Court.[17]
The Constitution states that a nominee is not eligible unless they are:
Since the 1990s, the nomination and confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from theprint press andelectronic media, as news media often comments on the executive's selection for the appointment.: 388–389 [21] Appointments of Chief JusticesSaeeduzzaman Siddiqui,S.A. Shah,Iftikhar Chaudhry,Faisal Arab, andT.H. JillaniSaqib Nisar andAsif Saeed Khosa have gain prominent attention from media in all over the country, mainly due to their ideological and philosophical leanings.: xxxx [22][23]
Furthermore, the major and influential recommendations for judges to be elevated at the Supreme Court as justices comes from theJudicial Commission that is chaired by the Chief Justice of Pakistan who prepares the qualification summary before the nomination sent to executive.[24]
There has beenAd hoc appointment in the Supreme Court made when the quorum of Judges is not possible to complete the sitting number of justices in the court, or if it is necessary to increase the number of justices in the Supreme Court.[20] The nomination comes directly from theJudicial Commission chaired by the Chief Justice who prepares the nomination summary as President confirms their appointments.[20]
As of current, there are two justices are on thead hoc appointment that are from theFederal Sharia Court.[25]
A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed under theConstitution only on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity and by an order of the President of Pakistan.[26] A written reference has to be sent to theSupreme Judicial Council that will conduct the hearings of allegations of misconduct that would determine the removal of judge.[26]
TheJudicial Commission determines the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court justices.[27] A Supreme Court justice gets₨. 558,907.00 ($5,333.85) with additional allowances of₨. 259,009.00 ($2471.81).[27] Other benefits include the free housing and medical treatment as well as tax-free electricity bills.[27] A judge who has retired as a justice of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in Pakistan.[28]
The Supreme Court has the explicitde jure powers and enjoys the powerfuljudicial independence to block the exercise of certainPrime Minister's executive powers orParliament's legislative powers that repugnant toConstitution.[29] The Supreme Court has maintained its institutional integrity and has been able to maintain its authority to some degree in the face ofmartial law in Pakistan in last decades.: 144–145 [30]
In another example of ade jure power granted to the Court, article 17 of the Constitution states:
Every citizen, not being in the service of (State of) Pakistan,shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan and such law shall provide that where theGovernment declare that any political party has been formed or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, the Federal Government shall, within fifteen days of such declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court whose decision on such referenceshall be final.
— Article 17:Freedom of association; Chapter I: Fundamental Rights and Principles,Constitution of Pakistan,Chapter source[31]
The Supreme Court thus provides, in principle, an important safeguard against the abuse of laws that could potentially have politically repressive consequences or in clear violation ofhuman rights.[29]
The Constitution also allows the Supreme Court to exercise powers and takesua sponte actions against the person, regardless of its statue, or the authority, of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards the Supreme Court, its justices, and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the Supreme Court's institutional integrity and popular authority.[26]
In 1997,Chief JusticeS.A. Shah foundPrime MinisterNawaz Sharif ofcontempt of court but the order itself was voided by theSupreme Judicial Council.: 45–46 [32] In 2012,Chief JusticeIftikhar Chaudhry retroactively barred Prime MinisterYousaf Raza Gillani of holding the office after the latter was found of in charges of court of contempt and refusing to follow the court's orders.[33]
In 2013, the Supreme Court tooksuo motu actions against populistImran Khan of criticising against the judgement of the Supreme Court's senior judges in regards to the elections.[34] The case was later dropped whenAttorney-General assured the Supreme Court justices that Imran Khan did not insubordinate the judiciary.[34]
Pakistani politicians have historically voiced concerns over judicial involvement in governance, often calling for a recalibration of power between the judiciary and the legislature. On 21 October 2024, the National Assembly passed the26th Amendment in an hours-long, overnight session. Previously, the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court would automatically succeed as Chief Justice upon retirement of the incumbent at age 65. Under the new amendment, the Chief Justice of Pakistan will now be nominated by a Special Parliamentary Committee from among the three most senior judges of the Supreme Court, with a fixed term of three years.[35][36]
The government, led by thePakistan Muslim League (N) (PML-N) and supported by its coalition partner, thePakistan People's Party (PPP), has argued that the amendment is necessary to curb what it views as judicial overreach. Prime MinisterShehbaz Sharif described the amendment as an assertion of legislative authority and a step toward restoring balance in Pakistan's constitutional structure. Supporters claim that the judiciary's previous involvement in political matters had, at times, led to decisions undermining elected governments and democracy itself.[35][36]
The change prompted criticism and concern over its potential impact on judicial independence. FormerSindh High Court Bar Association president Salahuddin Ahmed shared a statement from the Karachi Bar Association that criticised the amendment's passage, calling it a "dark day in the democratic history" of the country due to its approval in a "non-transparent and hasty manner without any debate." In contrast, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif referred to the amendment as a "historical achievement," asserting that it reinforced "parliamentary sovereignty." Interior MinisterMohsin Naqvi also lauded the legislation, claiming it would ensure "speedy justice" and facilitate "positive reforms." While significant concerns about the amendment's implications for judicial independence have been raised, supporters maintain that the changes aim to create a more efficient, accountable, and transparent judicial appointment process.[37]
Lawmakers from the opposition party thePakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), criticised the amendments as an effort to weaken the judiciary and called it a "black day" in Pakistan's constitutional history.[38]United Nations Human Rights chiefVolker Türk also expressed concern that the 26th Constitutional Amendment could significantly undermine the judiciary's independence, stating that "Constitutional reforms must be in line with international human rights law."[39] TheInternational Commission of Jurists (ICJ) similarly criticised the amendment, describing it as a "blow to judicial independence."[40] However, it also acknowledged that some reforms to the judicial system were needed to enhance efficiency and accountability.[38]
In practice awarded byConstitution, judges of the supreme court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. The Constitution allows the judges to be appointed at the Supreme Court regardless of colour, race, and religious sect. JusticesA.S.M. Akram,Fazal Akbar,Amin Ahmed,Abdus Sattar,Hameedur Rahman, andHamoodur Rahman (Chief Justice) were theBengali/Bihari jurists who served as senior justices in the Supreme Court. In 1960, JusticeAlvin Robert Cornelius became the firstChristian to be served asChief Justice, whileGeorge Constantine also served in the Court.: 55 [41]
In the 1970s–1980s, JusticeDorab Patel was the firstZorastrian, followed by JusticeRustom Sidwa who served as Supreme Court justice from 1989 until 1993.: 226–227 [42] JusticeRana Bhagwandas was the first Hindu jurist who has distinction being the Chief Justice of Pakistan in 2007. JusticeQazi Faez Isa is of theHazara descent who is currently serving as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.[43]
In January 2022, Ayesha Malik was sworn in as the first female Supreme Court judge.[44]
The jurists/judges do not represent or receive the official political endorsements from the nation'spolitical parties which is an acceptable professional practice in the executive branch of the government.: 199–200 [45] As theirAmerican counterparts in theU.S. Supreme Court, the Jurists philosophical leanings in the Supreme Court are often categorized asconservative,moderate,liberal, andtextualist that reflected in theirjudicial interpretation of the judgements in the impending cases of importance.: xxx [46][47]: 67–68 [48]
In 1947,Governor-GeneralMuhammad Ali Jinnah confirmed the nomination of JusticeSir Abdul Rashid, at the behest ofPrime MinisterLiaquat Ali-Khan, was said to be anational conservative leanings in his judgement.: 60–65 [48] His successor, Chief JusticeMuh'd Munir, was a liberal in his jurisprudence but sided with conservative judgement when validated dissolution of the firstConstituent Assembly in 1954 and theNational Assembly in 1958 in the light ofdoctrine of necessity.: 67 [48] Under the Chief JusticeMuh'd Shahabuddin, the Supreme Court had the conservative leanings in regards to the constitutionalism and their judgements in the cases of important issues.: 67–68 [48] Chief JusticeShahabuddin plays a crucial role in drafting thesecond set of theConstitution of Pakistan which incorporated the liberal ideas with the important Islamic provisions.: 68 [48]
In 1960,PresidentAyub Khan appointed JusticeAlvin Robert Cornelius who took much liberal approach in his jurisprudence when deciding cases on fundamental rights against the executive overreach.: 436 [3] Justice Cornelius led Supreme Court's verdicts on many constitutional cases were carefully sided with the Islamic ideas but provided much broader role of liberal ideas to safeguard the fundamental rights of the ordinary citizens while being critical of thestate emergency.: 437 [3]
In 1968, the Supreme Court was greatly divided when Chief JusticeHamoodur Rahman presided the case hearings after PresidentYahya Khan declared martial law and suspended the writ of the constitution.: 59 [49] In the views of Chief Justice Rahman, the martial law was invalid and notably ruled that Yahya Khan's assumption of power was "illegal usurpation".[49] The Supreme Court also overruled and overturned its convictions that called for validation ofmartial law in 1958.[49] Despite rulings, there was a split decision between the moderate justices, including Chief Justice Rahman, and conservative leaning justices of the Supreme Court who "condoned" the actions in the light of "doctrine of necessity".: 60–61 [49] Thede jure powers of the Supreme Court have increased since presiding theWar Enquiry Commission in 1974, intervening in the events that Supreme Court justices viewed as violation of human rights by the executive authorities.
In 1977, the Supreme Court had again legalized themartial law in the light of "doctrine of necessity" and denied taking petitions to review its decision. During this time, Supreme Court justices were described as notoriously conservative and only a few moderates, appointed byPrime MinisterZulfikar Ali Bhutto as his role asPresident in 1971–73.: 1915 [2] The Supreme Court, however, did take the petitions to review the case ofZulfikar Ali Bhutto, after his counsels filed an appeal against the verdict ofLahore High Court.: 365 [50] TheConstitution Bench formed under Chief JusticeSh. Anwarul Haq, had contained Justice Muhammad Akram, JusticeDorab Patel, JusticeMohammad Haleem, JusticeNasim Hasan Shah, Justice Ghulam safdar Shah, Justice Kareem Illahi, Justice Waheedudin Ahmad, and Justice Kaisar Khan.: 61 [51] By 1979, the Supreme Court greatly divided with JusticeDorab Patel, Justice G.S. Shah, and JusticeMoh'd Haleem, who had the moderate and liberal leanings in their jurisprudence strongly disagreed with Bhutto's sentence ofCapital punishment.: 273–274 [52] On the other hand, Chief JusticeHaq, JusticeN.H. Shah, Justice Waheedudin Ahmad, and Justice Kaisar Khan, were described as having conservative/texualist ideology in their rulings and found Bhutto suitable for capital punishment; hence, marking a split decision by4:3.[53]
In 1993,Prime MinisterBenazir Bhutto controversially elevated the Supreme Court jurist,SA Shah, who had known for his liberal jurisprudence, asChief Justice over two senior ranking jurists at the Supreme Court.: xxx [54] However, Justice Shah's judicial leanings did not protected theBenazir' administration when it wasdismissed byPresidentFarooq Leghari overallegations oncorruption.: xxx [54] In 1997, judicial crises reached its peak whenSupreme Judicial Council took up the case against Justice Shah's appointment who eventually resigned from his office and succeeded by conservative juristAjmal Mian, only to be replaced with conservative juristSaeeduzzaman Siddiqui as the new Chief Justice.: 63–64 [55]
On 12 October 1999, the Supreme Court partially validated themartial law in the light of "doctrine of necessity" on the technicality but Chief JusticeSaeeduzzaman Siddiqui decided to hear the petitions over the legality of the martial law.: 25 [56] Although, the Supreme Court had only validated the martial law for three-years only, the Supreme Court's jurists and JusticeSaeeduzzaman Siddiqui in clear view of this coup as a "violation of constitution" as Sharif's lawyers made a ground base for finding Musharraf of treason.[57]
General Musharraf, acting asChief Executive,forcefully retired the conservative leaning jurists and elevated the judges who had known to have libertarian views in their jurisprudence at the Supreme Court, including JusticeIrshad Hasan Khan as Chief Justice.: 145 [58] In 2002, The Supreme Court supervised thegeneral elections successfully oversaw the transition of power from the office ofChief Executive toPrime minister.: 350 [59] The legalization ofContempt of court act further strengthened thejudicial independence of the Supreme Court in 2004 whenShaukat Aziz became prime minister.: 350–351 [59]
In a lecture in November 2022, JusticeAyesha A. Malik observed an increasing tendency to bring political and social issues to court that would be more suited for resolution within parliament or by the executive. Noting that this is the point at whichbalancing of power, judicial restraint (refraining from undue interference in other branches of government) and legal clarity become relevant, Malik expressed the view that courts should not act solely oncompassion but instead prioritize upholding therule of law.[60]
Ruling on taxpayer rights
In a landmark 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled against theFederal Board of Revenue (FBR), emphasizing that tax recovery must uphold the dignity and legal rights of citizens. Authored by JusticeAyesha Malik, the ruling dismissed FBR's petition to justify same-day recovery notices under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance.
The Court underscored that such practices violate the principles of due process under Article 10A and the constitutional right to dignity under Article 14. The bench, led by JusticeMunib Akhtar, reaffirmed that even in tax matters, coercive actions must not harass or intimidate taxpayers a reflection of the broader plight faced by many Pakistanis under heavy-handed enforcement[61]
The justices and jurists of the supreme court are set toretire at the age of 65, unless the jurists sooner resign or are removed from office, or records written reasons for deviating from this rule in accordance with theConstitution.[1] By an act of parliament of 1997, the number of judges was fixed at 17. However, in 2024, strength of Supreme Court was increased to 25 judges. Currently, there are sixteen judges and nine positions are vacant.[62][63][64]There are two ad hoc appointment of the jurists from theFederal Shariat Court to assist with religiosity concerned cases.[65]
As of current formation,Yahya Afridi is tenuring as theChief Justice of Pakistan, having been appointed on 26 October 2024. The Supreme Court is currently composed of the followingjustices (in order of seniority), including the twenty-three regular judges including the Chief Justic, one acting judge and two ad-hoc judges for Shariat Appellate Bench.
The Shariat Appellate Bench is composed of legal scholars that have expertise onIslamic jurisprudence since its establishment in 1980.[66] The ad hoc appointments for this bench are drawn either from theFederal Shariat Court or from among theClergy.[67] Decisions made theFederal Shariat Court may be appealed to the Appellate Bench, as the Appellate Bench of Supreme Court is the final authority onIslamic interpretation of law in Pakistan.[68]
| Order | Name | Appointment | Retirement | Court of precedence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yahya Afridi[69] | 28 June 2018 | 25 October 2027 | Peshawar High Court | 30th Chief Justice of Pakistan |
| 2 | Munib Akhtar[70] | 8 May 2018[71] | 13 December 2028 | Sindh High Court | Contender for the 31st Chief Justice of Pakistan after the retirement of Yahya Afridi on 25 October 2027 |
| 3 | Jamal Khan Mandokhail | 9 August 2021 | 11 November 2026 | Balochistan High Court | |
| 4 | Muhammad Ali Mazhar | 16 August 2021 | 4 October 2029 | Sindh High Court | Contender for the 31st Chief Justice of Pakistan after the retirement of Yahya Afridi on 25 October 2027 |
| 5 | Ayesha Malik | 23 January 2022 | 2 June 2031 | Lahore High Court | Contender for the 31st Chief Justice of Pakistan after the retirement of Yahya Afridi on 25 October 2027 |
| 6 | Shahid Waheed | 11 November 2022 | 24 December 2031 | Lahore High Court | |
| 7 | Musarrat Hilali | 7 July 2023 | 7 August 2026 | Peshawar High Court | |
| 8 | Irfan Saadat Khan | 3 November 2023 | 6 February 2028 | Sindh High Court | |
| 9 | Naeem Akhtar Afghan | 11 March 2024 | 28 June 2028 | Balochistan High Court | |
| 10 | Malik Shehzad Ahmed Khan[72] | 25 June 2024 | 24 March 2028 | Lahore High Court | |
| 11 | Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi[72] | 25 June 2024 | 15 June 2028 | Sindh High Court | |
| 12 | Shahid Bilal Hassan[72] | 25 June 2024 | 11 March 2030 | Lahore High Court | |
| 13 | Muhammad Hashim Kakar | 14 February 2025 | 17 September 2028 | Balochistan High Court | |
| 14 | Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui | 14 February 2025 | 11 August 2030 | Sindh High Court | |
| 15 | Salahuddin Panhwar | 14 February 2025 | 8 August 2031 | Sindh High Court | |
| 16 | Shakeel Ahmad | 14 February 2025 | 31 January 2032 | Peshawar High Court | |
| 17 | Ishtiaq Ibrahim | 14 February 2025 | 1 December 2034 | Peshawar High Court | |
| 18 | Vacant | ||||
| 19 | Vacant | ||||
| 20 | Vacant | ||||
| 21 | Vacant | ||||
| 22 | Vacant | ||||
| 23 | Vacant | ||||
| 24 | Vacant | ||||
| 25 | Vacant |
| Order | Name | Appointment | Retirement | Court of precedence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb | 14 February 2025 | 14 February 2026 | Islamabad High Court |
| Order | Name listings | Appointments | Retirement | Institution of Precedence | Alma mater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | Khalid Masud[73] | n/a | n/a | International Islamic University | McGill University,Canada |
| 28 | Qibla Ayaz[74] | n/a | n/a | University of Edinburgh |
The registry of the Supreme Court is its appointedofficers who is assisted by registrars, several additional and deputy registrars, gazetted officers, and other law clerks.[75] The registry branches providesspeedy justice of all nature of crimes and disputes to the people living inremote areas in the country, while keeping thecivil registry of the people.[75]
There are five registry of the supreme court: Islamabad,[75] Karachi,[76] Lahore,[77] Peshawar,[78] and Quetta.[79]
The Officers and Registrars are appointed by the supreme court with the approval from the chief justices ofHigh Courts and thePresident and may make rules providing for the appointment by for their terms and conditions of employment that is granted by the Constitution.[80]
The Supreme Court has an extensive competitive program for the appointment of the law clerks and research associates at theSupreme Court Library.[81] The Supreme Court hires the law clerks based on the recommendations provided by their professors from their respected universities and colleges.[82] Law clerks reviews the petitions for writ ofcertiorari,research them, preparebench memorandums, and draftopinions, and reported back to the supreme court's administrative registrar.[82] As of current, the supreme court has 10 law clerks for the2016–17 year.[83]
ThePakistan Bar Council provides qualification for senioradvocates,barristers,lawyers, and selected civil court judges to be elevated as Advocate Supreme Court (ASC) based on individual experience, qualifications, and selected invitations.[84]
.jpg)
TheSupreme Court Building is located at theConstitution Avenue inIslamabad, flanked by thePrime Minister's Office to the south, thePresidential Palace and the Parliament Building to the north.[85]
Initially, the Supreme Court met inKarachi and later moved toLahore/Rawalpindi on various location until 1960 after thegovernment moved toIslamabad.[85] The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of theIslamabad Police, maintaining the law and order as well as campus security of the court.[86]
The Supreme Court Building is designed by the renowned Japanese architect,Kenzo Tange, in amodernist style complementing the Parliament Building.[85] TheCDA Engineering and theEnvironmental Protection Agency supervised the engineering the Supreme Court's monument andcivil works infrastructure throughout its lengthy construction since the 1960s.[85] In the 1980s–90s,CDA Engineering later expanded infrastructure of the Supreme Court especially when building the Supreme Court's law library.[85]|
The Court Complex is comprised on Main Central Block, Judges Chamber's block, and Administrative Block, covering 339,861sq. ft2.[85] Administration of the Court is supervised by the Chief Justice who exercise the powers through the Registrars, Law clerks, Librarians, and private secretaries to run the judicial functions in proper manner.[87]
The Court complex judges' chambers, a separate building consisting of thelaw library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services including a lecture auditorium.[85] There is anElizabethan-styledEntrance Hall, cafeteria, conference rooms, and a vintageDining hall, that resembles theVictorian era.[85] TheSupreme Court Library contains the collection of 72,000 law books, reports and journals is situated in the basement.[85]
The Supreme Court Museum serves as an invaluable repository for preserving the judicial history of post- and pre-Independence era for future generation.: 1–2 [88] The Museum's collections include fine arts, oral histories, photographs, personal belongings of judges and chief justices and an archival collection of rare documents.: 2 [88] These collections are displayed in the permanent exhibit gallery of the Museum, as well as in temporary exhibits; surely in future these archival materials will be assets to the researchers.: 3 [88] The idea of Supreme Court Museum was dreamt in year 2010 by Chief JusticeTassaduq Hussain Jillani and completed in the June 2016.: 5–6 [88]
The Supreme Court has all theoriginal,appellate, andadvisory jurisdiction onall of the country's courts – hence, the Supreme Court is the finalarbitrator of all cases where the decision has been reached.[1]: 15 [62] In 1976, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was constrained and limited by the passing of theFifth Amendment to theConstitution but its powers were originally restored in 1985 through theEighth Amendment, which further expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[89]
The Supreme Court enjoys a powerfuljurisdiction in the country including on thefederal government,provincial governments, governmental agencies,NGOs, and where the government and governmental agencies fails to perform its mandated duty to protect the basic human rights or deviating from the law in light of taking theSuo motu notice.[90][1]
From 2008 to 2013, the Supreme Court repeatedly exercise itssuo motu power in a view ofcheck and balance on the governmental authorities to prevent abuse of human rights and to prevent themiscarriage of justice.[91]
The independent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is taken as positive by the legal observers as an attempt of providing a fair, speedy, and public trial of authorities accused of abusing the basic human rights.[90] Commenting of the issue of suo motu, JusticeK.M. Sharif critically opined: "[Supreme Court]'s jurisdiction will take notice of every matter in which the executive is showing slackness."[90] The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over the direct appeals from high courts decisions, as powers granted by the Constitution as anappellate jurisdiction.[92]
The Supreme Court also has anoriginal jurisdiction in any dispute between any two or moreprovincial governments or theGovernment of Pakistan itself where the Supreme Court may pronounce declaratory judgments only to settle the disputes.[1] However, almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal, making the cases considered based on original jurisdiction rarely.: 275 [93] On events involving the legal and technical issues concerning the implementation of law and the writ of constitution, Supreme Court has anadvisory jurisdiction to answer questions and provides written opinions on public importance as consulted by thePresident upon the request from thePrime Minister.[94]
The Supreme Court also enjoys theplenary jurisdiction and may exercise itsplenary powers for passing appropriate orders to ensure the completion of its orders and to complete the justice at all levels of commands.[95]: 231 [96][self-published source?]
The Supreme Court is empowered to frame its own rules for the purpose of regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.[97] When the cases are determined as their final rulings, the jurists deliver their rulings in an open court, either at once or by announcing a future date to the concerned parties through their advocates upon writing their opinions during their recesses.: 22–23 [98]
All cases that come before the supreme court through thewrits ofcertiorari that are processed through the law clerks and advocates.: 23 [98] The Supreme Court has powers to transfer any case,appeals, or other pendings proceedings before anyHigh Courts toany subordinated court if the supreme court considers it expedient to do so in the interest of justice and speedy trial.[97] The Supreme Court may issues advisory directions, orders, and decrees in any case or matter pending in the high courts necessary for doing the complete justice, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document.[97] The directions and orders issued by the Supreme Court are finals despite questions are arises during the hearings in the High Court for the directions provided the Supreme court.[97]
When thecertiorari petitions are granted by the Supreme Court, the case is then set for theoral arguments, issuing orders to advocates of concerning parties in the case of importance.: 6 [99] If the parties, despite the opportunity granted by thecourt to make oral submissions, do not avail the same, the court is not bound to wait indefinitely for them and keep on adjourning the matter.: 6–7 [99] During the time of theorality by either sides of the parties, the justices may interrupt the advocate and ask questions.: 7 [99] The petitioner gives the first presentation, and may reserve some time to rebut the respondent's arguments after the respondent has concluded.: 7 [99]
At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for the final judgements where cases are decided by majority vote of the justices.: 10–25 [100] It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides evenly on a case, as such happened on the caseNusrat Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (1977–78).[49]
Despite its final rulings, the Supreme Court may review any case upon the filing of review petition of any party to any civil and criminal case of any decisions, judgements/rulings have been pronounced by the Supreme Court.[97] The party that filed an appealed through the supreme court advocates to the Supreme Court is theappellant and the non-mover is therespondent, where all case names before the Supreme Court are styled "petitioner/appellant vs. defendants/respondent".: 104–105 [98]
All decisions that are pronounced by the supreme court, after hearing the review petitions, are considered as final rulings that are to be binding on all other courts in Pakistan.[97] Theconstitution also empowers the Supreme Court to call upon any authority, either an executive or judicial, to act in aid of the Supreme Court to ensure its rulings are delivered to complete justice.[97]
TheSupreme Court of Pakistan Press is the official authority that publishes the reportable Supreme Court's decisions and opinions, as well as judicial supplements, law reports, and bibliographies.[101] The Supreme Court's opinions are first published and is made available on the Court's web site, in form of "press release".[101] Secondly, comprehensive opinions and orders are bound together in paperback form in which the final version of the Court's opinions appears which is called a preliminary print of "Annual Report".[102][103]
About a year after the paperbacks are published, a final and more cited volume of decision of supreme court volume of Annual Report is published and numbered whereas the researchers may cite the works in their reports.[104]
All supreme court advocates are required to be members of theSupreme Court Bar Association in order to plead the cases before the court.: 1–2 [105] Formed and established in 1989, the Bar comprises the supreme court lawyers who are elected from all over the country and is aimed to uphold the rule of law, cause of justice and protect the interest of the legal profession as well as that of public.[106]
The Bar is governed by an executive council consisting of 22 elected members with an elected president and a secretary.[107] Advocates can be admitted as either individuals or groups and their admission is approved by the elected president of the Bar.: 2–3 [105] Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association are also granted access to theSupreme Court Library's research collection and law periodicals.: 3–4 [105]
The Supreme Court has played an influential and pivotal role in thepolitical history of the country since its inception in 1947, and has taken constitutional role for protecting the rights in the light of "doctrine of necessity".: 236 [108] Thede jure institutional powers of the Supreme Court as outlined in the Constitution can only be understood as an exemplary of constitutional cases involving the actions of thePakistan's militaryturning over thecivilian government in an attempt to restorelaw and order to prevent chaos in the society.: 236 [108]
In 1954, the Court under Chief JusticeMoh'd Munir exercised its institutional power in a supreme court case (Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan) when it validated the dismissal ofConstituent Assembly, whereasM.A. Bogra continued to serve as Prime Minister underGovernor-GeneralSir Malik Ghulam.: 118–119 [109] There were three constitutional cases overheard by the Supreme Court:
First, the Supreme Court validated the Governor-General's actions in case 1 but soon considered such powers asUltra vires in case 2 and case 3. However, the Court found it legal in its jurisdiction in thrice cases when it validated the actions under the impression of "doctrine of necessity".: 236 [108] Despite its rulings, the Court maintained its institutional authority over the Governor-General's actions and ultimately supervised the election of theConstituent Assembly which was transformed intoNational Assembly ofParliament that promulgated thefirst set ofConstitution of Pakistan.: 119–121 [109]
In 1969, Supreme Court justices again heard the petitions against the suspension of thesecond set of theConstitution whenarmy chief GeneralYahya Khan took over thepresidency amid the resignation ofPresidentAyub Khan.: 59 [49] This constitutional case cited as, "Asma Jillani v. Government of the Punjab", evenly divided the justices on this issue but bitterly approved such actions in the light of "necessity doctrine", with Chief JusticeHamoodur Rahman critically opined against this actions as he notably ruled that Yahya Khan's assumption of power was "illegal usurpation".: 59–60 [49] In doing so, the Supreme Court also overruled and overturned its convictions that called for validation ofmartial law in 1958.: 60–61 [49]
The institutional influence of Supreme Court on the political events in the country grew since 1971 after the conclusion of theWar Enquiry Commission that provided far reaching insightful recommendations to prevent foreign intervention.[110] In 1975, the institutional powers of the Supreme Court were constraint after the passing of thefifth amendment that ultimately disturbed the "checks and balances" system in the country, that eventually strain the executive and judiciary relations.[89] In 1977, the Supreme Court courted by Chief JusticeS. Anwarul Haq used the institutional powers to provide a legality to justify the actions resulted inmartial law to dismiss thePrime MinisterZulfikar Ali Bhutto but decided to hear a petition to review the death sentence awarded by theLahore High Court after the murder trial reached its conclusion.: 103 [111] In a controversial leanings of4:3, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence andZulfikar Ali Bhutto but it maintained its institutional integrity while taking many cases involving theZia administration.[112] The institutionalde jure powers of the Supreme Court were restored to its original position after the passing of theEighth Amendment in 1985.[89]
After themilitary takeover of thecivilian government, thepro-democracy organizations andPML(N)'s lawyers challenged the legality of the military takeover, asking the supreme court to review its rulings.[113] After the lengthy court battle betweenSharif's andMusharraf's lawyers, the Supreme Court was in a clear view of the military take over as "unconstitutional" but favoured the legality onnecessity grounds that was viewed as very limited, on 12 May 2000.[114][115][116]
Widely publicised case, theNawaz Sharif vs. Federation, the supreme court relied its judgement based on the principle ofsalus populi est suprema lex and rejected the options of "complete surrender" to the regime or total opposition which, in its judgement, would have led to the "closure of the courts".[115] Due to theThirteenth Amendment removed the effectivecheck and balance ofbranches of the government, the supreme court marked its reference using the "Necessitas facit licitum quod alias non-est licitum" and asserted on the right of the Superior Courts to review the orders, proceedings, acts, and legislative measures of the Musharraf regime.[115] In addition, the situation was termed by the supreme court as a "case of constitutional deviation for a transitional period", and accepted Musharraf's argument for holding thenational elections within two-to-three years, giving Musharraf until 12 May 2002 to hold new elections.[115] While issuing a lengthy judgement, the supreme court effectively established its institutional authority on Musharraf as it reserved for its right to review and re-examine the continuation of Musharraf's emergency powers.[115]
Before this judgement, Musharraf did not hint a timetable for the restoration of democracy – having argued that it needed an indefinite and possibly prolonged time to reform the country – Musharraf publicly submitted to the Court's judgement.[117][115] Several of Pakistanilegal theorists have posited that Pakistan's "grundnorm", the basis for itsConstitutional convention and system of laws, continues in effect (and the Supreme Court therefore retains its authority) even when the written constitution is suspended by the imposition of a militarydictablanda.[115]
TheConstitution empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its powers ofcontempt of court to punish any person or an authority found of scandalizing, abusing, interfering, and obstructing the procedures of the court or its rulings.[26] In 2001–2002, there were additional amendments made that further empowers the Supreme Court and its institutional powers to struck any federal authority found on the charges of contempt of court.[118]
In a much publicized case, the Supreme Court effectively used its constitutional powers when it ceasedPrime MinisterYousaf Raza Gillani from running the government when the court found him guilty of contempt of court charges– hench disqualified the prime minister from holding any public offices in the country.[119][120]
The Supreme Court has been given literary criticism by historians and authors of history of Pakistan for validating themartial law against the elected governments of Pakistan by the military interventions.[32]
In 2007, it was reported widely by thePakistani news media that theMilitary Intelligence officials, acting under then-President and army chiefGeneralPervez Musharraf, were using photographs of the justices involved with prostitutes to blackmail and pressurize the supreme court justices to take the oath of allegiance and make rulings favorable to the then-President Musharraf.[121]
TheLawyer's movement, allied with the rule of Law movement led byPML(N), eventually called for a successful long march to have to justices of the supreme court restored before thestate of emergency imposed in 2007. Led under the direction of PML(N) PresidentNawaz Sharif, now thePrime Minister, thelong march effectively restored the supreme court justices when Prime MinisterYousuf Raza Gilani appeared onnational television, only to announce unconditional restoration of the judiciary.[122]
With immediate effect on 17 March 2009, JusticesJavaid Iqbal,Ijaz Ahmed,K. R. Ramday, andRaja Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmad were restored to their position as of 2 November 2007 with JusticeIftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry assuming the post ofChief Justice on 22 March 2009.News media pundits eventually noted that it was GeneralTariq Majid, then-Chairman joint chiefs, and GeneralAshfaq Parvez Kayani, then-army chief, had played an ambiguous role in intervening and encouraging a rapprochement between the government and the opposition. Neither side acknowledged this role, however, until lawyers' movement leader Aitezaz Ahsan publicly admitted Kayani's role. There were mass speculations that protestors and law enforcement agencies would have violently collided otherwise had they not intervened.[122]
The restoration of the justices that resulted from the immense public pressure led to the judiciary to begin a quest for independence with an aim to ensure a strong and efficient judicial system that could quickly deliver justice to the public.[122] The Supreme Court took notice of several important constitutional and other cases in the period that related to the public interest. These cases of importance included the constitutional petitions and judgements on:
The Supreme Court rendered its judgement declare the appointments based upon PCO on 3 November 2007 as null and void as well as declaring theNRO as also null and voided that ultimately opened the investigations andcases against then-PresidentAsif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Gillani.[122]
The Supreme Court became extremely vigilant on corruption cases related to theGillani ministry, effectively led to thegovernment shutdown and critics noted that the judicial activism slowed of government productivity without corruption has created a tension between theChaudhry Court and the Gillani ministry in 2008 till 2013.[122]
Of the 14 justices that rendered a verdict related to taking an oath under the PCO, 12 had taken the oath themselves. However, they controversially did not apply the judgement to themselves.
| Name | Status |
|---|---|
| Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. | Took Oath on PCO as Chief Justice Balochistan High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Balochistan High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Peshawar High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Lahore High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Peshawar High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Lahore High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Peshawar High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Balochistan High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Lahore High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Sindh High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. JusticeSarmad Jalal Osmany | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Sindh High Court on 26 January 2000 |
| Mr. Justice MuhammadSair Ali Khattak | Appointed as a Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore on 2 May 2001 |
| Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui | Appointed as a Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore on 21 September 2001 |
| Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja. | Took Oath on PCO as Judge of Lahore High Court on 26 January 2000 Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer JamaliTook Oath on PCO as Judge of Sindh High Court on 26 January 2000 |
As a result of the 31 July 2009 decision handed down in the case of Constitutional Petitions 8 and 9 of 2009, the following justices resigned before their cases were referred to Supreme Judicial Council:
| Name | Appointed | Status on 2 Nov 2007 | PCO oath, Result of Judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faqir Muhammad Khokhar | 10 January 2002.[123] | Supreme Court Judge | Khokkhar resigned from the Court on 5 August 2009. His normal retirement would have been 15 April 2010[124] |
| JusticeM. Javed Buttar | 29 July 2004[123] | Supreme Court Judge | Buttar resigned from the Court on 5 August 2009. His normal retirement would have been 15 November 2013[124] |
In addition to the above justices, the following justices were removed from the Supreme Court of Pakistan[125] on the ground that their appointment to the court was made without consultation with thede jure Chief Justice of Pakistan.
| Name | Appointed | Status on 2 Nov 2007 | PCO oath, Result of Judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justice Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan | 6 November 2007 | Peshawar High Court Judge | Khan became a Supreme Court justice on 6 November 2007. He was removed and deemed to have retired as a judge. |
| Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan | 6 November 2007 | Peshawar High Court Judge | Ijaz-ul-Hassan became a Supreme Court justice 6 November 2007. He was removed and deemed to have retired as a judge. |
| Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Legari | 6 November 2007 | Judge Sindh High Court | Legari became a Supreme Court justice 6 November 2007. He was removed and deemed to have retired as a judge. |
| Justice Ch. Ejaz Yousaf | 6 November 2007 | Chairman Press Council[126] | Yousaf was a retired Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court before he became a Supreme Court justice.[126] He was removed from the bench. |
| Justice Zia Perwez | 13 November 2007 | Judge Sindh High Court | Perwez became a Supreme Court justice 13 November 2007. Perwez was removed and reinstated as a judge for the Sindh High Court. |
| Justice Mian Hamid Farooq | 10 December 2007 | Lahore High Court Judge | Farooq became a Supreme Court justice 10 December 2007. He was removed and deemed to have retired as a judge. |
| Justice Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari | 10 December 2007 | Lahore High Court Judge | Bokhari became a Supreme Court justice 10 December 2007. He was removed and reinstated as a judge for the Lahore High Court. |
| Justice Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery | 10 December 2007 | Retired Sindh High court Judge | Jaffery became a Supreme Court justice 10 December 2007. He was removed and deemed to have retired as a judge. |
| Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali | 8 February 2008[127] | Lahore High Court Judge | Ali became a Supreme Court justice 8 February 2008. He was removed and deemed to have retired as a judge. |
| Justice Muhammad Furrukh Mahmud | 8 February 2008[128] | Retired Lahore High Court Judge[124] | Mahmud became a Supreme Court justice 8 February 2008. He was removed from the bench. |
| Hon. Sarmad Jalal Osmany | 19 September 2008 | Sindh High Court Judge | Osmany refused the PCO oath and was appointed to Supreme Court on 19 September 2008. He was removed from the bench of Supreme Court and reverted to a Sindh High Court Judge. He was then appointed as Chief Justice of Sindh High Court on 1 August 2009. |
| JusticeSardar Muhammad Aslam | 7 March 2009[citation needed] | Lahore High Court Judge | Aslam took the PCO oath on 3 November 2007 and became a Supreme Court Justice on 7 March 2009. He was removed and deemed to have retired. |
The decision of the Court summarily removed all justices of the higher judiciary who were not part of it as of 2 November 2007. Their removal was ordered on the grounds that thede jure Chief Justice was not allowed to advise in these cases. In the same decision the court held that thede jure Chief Justice from 3 November 2007 to 22 March 2009 was Justice Chaudhry.[122]
There were three groups of removed justices:
The Supreme Court bench that rendered the decision consisted entirely of justices who had taken oath under the PCO of 1999 themselves, but were already sitting justices of the higher judiciary at the time and had taken a constitutional oath. The 1999 PCO and decisions made under it were given constitutional protection bySeventeenth amendment.[122]
This decision has resulted in situations where:
Critics of the decision question the fact that some PCO judges are still working and some non-PCO judges have been sacked.
Removed ad hoc judges of the Lahore High Court have filed several petitions in the Supreme Court in Lahore for review of its judgment, which sent 76 judges of Supreme Courts and High Courts immediately home.
These judges argue that they were qualified to be appointed as judges of the High Court in accordance with the requirements of Article 193(2)of the 1973 Constitution and were offered to serve as ad hoc judges following the consultation required under the Constitution. They accepted the offer and took oath when the state of emergency was lifted. They never took oath under a PCO and continued performing the functions of judges of the High Court until judgement was rendered against them.
These judges were appointed by Lahore High Court Chief Justice Justice Zahid Hussain, who is still a justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and is not being tried before the Supreme Judicial Counsel.
The petition also noted that none of the sacked judges were made parties to the decision against them, nor were they able to comment in the hearing or in some cases aware that the hearing was taking place. They also allege that no copy of the decision was sent to the High Court or to the judges concerned.
According one news article,[129]the Supreme Court applied its judgement retroactively, having effect from 3 November 2007. The 14-member Supreme Court bench did not, however, apply the sanction to judges who took oath under the 1999 PCO. Some of these are current[when?] justices, and some have not yet[when?] taken a constitutional oath.
Critics of the decision also argue that it is inconsistent with the principles laid down in Malik Asad Ali's case where it was held that the Chief Justice was bound by the Court's judgement. Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was removed from office based on this case.
Inconsistently with the decision, the present Chief Justice Chaudhry accepted the stance of the government that Justice Dogar was the Chief Justice until his retirement.
Following the decision, the official website of the Supreme Court was hacked by an unknown person. The hacked website made derogatory remarks about Chief Justice Chaudhry.
{{cite book}}:|first1= has generic name (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)[self-published source]The Supreme Court (SC) has disqualified Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani as the prime minister in its short order of the NA Speaker ruling case, Geo News reported.
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
