Constitutional bench can also take suo motu notice: SC judge

Justice Mazhar clarified that 26th amendment did not eliminate the Supreme Court's authority to take suo motu notice.

Listen to article

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court's Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on Friday remakred that the top court’s constitutional bench retains the authority to take suo motu notice.

The apex court judge made these remarks during the hearing of an anti-terrorism case.

The case, took up by the constitutional bench, was brought to the court’s attention after the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Munir Paracha, argued that no further action was needed in the case.

He contended that following the 26th Amendment, the supreme court no longer had the right to initiate suo motu proceedings.

In response, Justice Mazhar clarified that while the amendment had changed procedural aspects, it did not eliminate the Supreme Court's ability to take suo motu notice.

“The procedure may have changed, but the Supreme Court still retains the power to take suo motu notice. The only difference is that such cases are now heard by the Constitutional Bench,” he remarked.

“Constitutional Bench is empowered to hear such cases and initiate suo motu proceedings if necessary,” SC judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed.

The bench, which included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, also observed that any relevant issues could be addressed in future cases.

Justice Mandokhel further noted that the matter would be considered in the context of another case if it arises again.

Furthermore, the six-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard another case regarding granting the right to appeal to judicial employees.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that making rules is the responsibility of the respective high courts, and a petition cannot be filed under Article 199, Clause 5.

The constitutional bench issued notices to the parties involved.

The constitutional bench also adjourned the LPG price fixation case until the second week of December, directing lawyers appearing via video link to attend the next hearing in person at the Supreme Court in Islamabad.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that two commissions had been formed in this case, and it was unclear under what authority the commissions had been established.

The constitutional bench disposed of the case related to appeals under the Banking Ordinance, while the case of Al-Jihad Trust vs Federation was dismissed due to being rendered ineffective.

The constitutional bench consolidated all cases related to the service structure of lady health workers, issued notices to the parties, and adjourned the hearing.