Islamabad:
Since the adoption of the 26th constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave the first relief to Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan by accepting his bail petitions in eight cases linked to the 9th of May 2023 violent incidents.
According to Legal Minds, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) adopted Yahya Afridi a very cautious order, which could be considered an attempt to provide a win-win situation for both sides-prosecution and the petitioner.
Many lawyers had expected the point to be withheld the case back to the Lahore High Court (LHC)-who had rejected the jail application in June to reproduction. However, the SC bench led by Chief Justice Afridi awarded bail.
The court refrained from commenting on the LHC judgment that had declared Imran Khan, as the perpetrator of the 9th of May -Collection. Attorneys noted that although LHC had denied bail on conspiracy fees, the pointed right -of -way relief to Khan expanded.
Formerly additional lawyer Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said that LHC, while refusing bail against Imran Khan, registered “certain findings” on disputed facts, thereby being lost beyond its jurisdiction, condemned the trial and undermines the presumption of innocence.
“Such an approach is unacceptable in guarantee law case law. Supervisory courts across all legal jurisdictions have consistently rejected this course, and our own case law, even if it is routed, has so far been no exception to the universally accepted principle,” he said.
Khokhar declared that LHC mistakenly mistakenly – whether out of ignorance, incompetence or Mala Fides. “Unfortunately, many observers believe a combination of all three,” he opinated.
Still, he said, is more worrying answers from the Supreme Court. In section 7 of its order, it noted the “specific findings” but failed to draw the necessary conclusions. “This omission, at one time institutional and personal, is astonishingly inexplicable.”
Khokhar believed that the Supreme Court should have confirmed the impossibility of such conclusions, rejected the Supreme Court’s observations and clarified that they should be fluttered with the trial that was not affected.
“In cases like this, a precedent exists to pass on stricts to the wrong judges. Even in the midst of the destruction of our legal, constitutional and democratic ruins, Chief Justice had an opportunity to avoid the worst and improve the moral and public legitimacy of a failing institution; the opportunity was missed.”
The descent of the previous two dates of hearings gave rise to a public view that the court and the prosecution were synchronized, operating in visible adaptation, he continued. He added that the absence of judicial rejection and dissatisfaction at High Court’s “clear conclusions” reinforced a generally kept belief that Chief Justice lacked “authority”.
The possible grant of bail was a relief and therefore very welcome to the nation here and its diaspora abroad, but unfortunately it was considered a consequence not by legal claim, but of a shift in state policy.
Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, who is himself an accused in cases on May 9, said the Supreme Court had clearly set aside LHC’s overreaction in his decision to reject IMRAN’s bail, but it stopped shortly after reprimanding the LHC judges.
In particular, this is not the first time that the same LHC bench has had its decision overturned by the Supreme Court. It seemed that certain LHC judges were positioning themselves as an appeal and claiming their views on Supreme Court judgments.
Chaudhry declared that if the Supreme Court did not slow down this trend, it would “seriously undermine the court’s hierarchical order,” he added.
While commenting on the written order, Sarwar Muzaffar Shah Advocate said the order reminded him of a tribute to American judge Frank Caprio, whom he had read about earlier in the day. “He was loved and respected because he believed the law should serve the people; and he did not consider it blind,” Shah said.
While the contents of the order were correct, Shah said it remained weak. “It follows the motto that the law is blind. This order should have been a strong, given what is happening in our country – the erosion of legal independence through the executing interference and weakening of public confidence in our justice system,” he said.
“An ideal judicial decision is the one where the court demonstrates both legal sharpness and legal courage. However, this order does not show. It shows that the court is characteristic to play for sure. To play for sure, proves to be dangerous to the justice system in our country,” he added.
Since the adoption of the 26th constitutional amendment, there is a perception that the overall courts are unable to protect the rights of those who are concerned with performing actions.
“CJ Afridi and the three-members of the Constitutional Benches Committee are considered the largest recipient of 26. Constitutional change. They face Battle of Perception. CJ Afridi must be aware that the institution’s reputation will be restored through judgments rather than the reform’s agenda with cooperation.”
