The Supreme Court has decided that any passivity on part of a Supreme Court of Supreme Court in response to a complaint from a legal officer regarding the interference of executive agencies would be contrary to his constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution.

“Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court: First, acted within its constitutional authority under Article 203 to oversee the procedure for subordinate courts, including anti-terrorism courts; and secondly, in light evidence.

We are aware that a Supreme Court Supreme Court in a province of a province of a province are the patering families in the judiciary of this province. Therefore, any passivity on his part in response to any such as complaint from a legal officer would be in violation of his constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution, “A four-page judgment authorized by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi Read, while hearing an exertion of an effort assigned to an effort by Chief Justice of Pakistan. (CJP) Department against the then Chief Justice Lahore High Court (LHC) on applications moved by the state seeking transfer of cases from an presidential judge of anti-terrorism court (ATC) to another.

The most important driving force for the special prosecutor representing the state was that conclusions registered in Parasat 8 and 9 of the orders were not only unsolicited, but also beyond the mandate of the authority, awarded to Chief Justice.

It should be noted that the former LHC CJ Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had taken a position against the performing agencies -interference in ATC judges.

He even took a strong exception to the Punjab government’s request to transfer the ATC Rawalpindi judge. The Punjab government was reluctant to appoint the ATCS judges recommended by the ex-LHC Chief Justice.

He had referred a complaint about the ex-ATC judge Sargodha to the Point Court, who heard Suo Motu cases about six Islamabad High Court judge’s letter against agencies’ interference in their legal functions.

Meanwhile, with the help of ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, the government was able to raise Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan to the pointed right. Four Supreme Court’s judges were not for his height to the point of point as they felt that the Punjab Court needed a strong administrative head.

Unlike the ex-LHC CJ, the former Chief Justice in Islamabad High Court was unable to intervene in the complaints of judges regarding performing interference.

A three-judge bench from the Pointed Court led by CJP Afridi in his written order said it is important to recognize the special supervisory authority stated in the Supreme Court Supreme Court in accordance with Article 203 of the Constitution.

“I det væsentlige overlader artikel 203 i forfatningen Chief Justice, som den administrative leder af en højesteret, med ansvaret for at føre tilsyn med og regulere proceduren for alle underordnede domstole i provinsen, herunder anti-terrorisme domstolene. Anvendelse af dette forfatningsmæssige mandat til det nuværende sager, det er vores opfattelse af, at Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, i hans administrerende kapacitet, ikke Was the topic of addressing the issuance of the broadcast with his estimates, but but also also also also also to smooth it out according to Hans Discuss, but also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also also: Customs to protect the presidents in the District. undue executive influence, ”the order said.

The court noted that the referral brought by the state against the president’s judge of ATC, allegation of bias, was duly considered by the administrative judge.

“After taking into account both the claims and the mediating judge’s reaction, the administrative judge decided to file the reference, but ultimately rejected it, indicating that there were inadequate reasons to continue further.

“After this, the transfer application was submitted, which was based solely on the fact that a referral was executed, despite the fact that no compelling evidence was presented to substantiate the claims. This order strengthens the conclusion that the transfer request lacked sufficient profit to justify further actions,” the order said.

“We have also been informed by the learned special prosecutor representing the state that the presidential judges of the courts of anti-terrorism if bias had been questioned by the state since have been transferred.

“As such, there is no live question for immediate consideration. The state is still upset, especially by the findings registered in Paras. 8 and 9 of the forced orders, the costs, and the referral of the case to the handling of this court in Suo Moto Case No. 1 of 2024, as registered therein,” The order read.

“To our minds, the challenged act of Chief Justice is essentially administrative, and it also relates to the management and monitoring of the subordinates under the constitutional mandate planned under Article 203 of the Constitution should not be disturbed, so that it is not obviously unreasonable, Capricy or arbitrary, which is not apparently in the circumstances of the current cases.”

The court also noted that the conclusions recorded in Paras. 8 and 9 of the intended orders relating to the professional behavior of the judicial officers and the state’s salaried employees appear to be something personal.

“While we are aware of the seriousness of the observations made, we are of the opinion that judicial prosperity requires circumvention, especially when commenting on the implementation of the executive and legal officials and the more without proper investigation. Therefore, we find it necessary to clarify that such comments, whether favorable or unwanted, protects them from legitimate control, and the critical notes regarding state salaried employees, in particular, the accuse, in accordance,, in particular, the accuse, treated as a sword to prejudice or undermine their future behavior.