Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has questioned the legitimacy of a regular bench handling constitutional cases. Presiding over the three-member bench hearing a tax-related case, Justice Shah remarked, “If no constitutional bench is seated, does this mean we are unconstitutional?” His comments came as the court deliberated on whether the case should be heard by a constitutional bench instead of a regular bench. Justice Ayesha Malik noted that the current bench was handling the matter until a constitutional bench could be convened. Justice Shah raised further questions, saying that even if the regular bench ruled on the case, its authority might be questioned without a formal constitutional bench. Justice Aqeel Abbasi added to the discussion, asking if the court had the jurisdiction to proceed with the case in its current structure. Justice Malik cited Article 2-A, explaining that the Practice and Procedure Committee would determine which cases fall under a constitutional bench, though the decision would take time. Concluding the session, Justice Shah commented that they would delay any verdict and adjourned the hearing indefinitely, saying that the case required more clarity on bench jurisdiction.
Justice Shah questions legitimacy of regular bench handling constitutional cases
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has questioned the legitimacy of a regular bench handling constitutional cases. Presiding over the three-member bench hearing a tax-related case, Justice Shah remarked, “If no constitutional bench is seated, does this mean we are unconstitutional?” His comments came as the court deliberated on whether the case should be heard by a […]
مضمون کا ماخذ : Bắt sòng bạc mới nhất
