مضمون کا ماخذ : نتیجہ بہت زیادہ
‘Wholly unjustified’
In the dissenting note, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Jamal Mandokhail termed the suo motu proceedings “wholly unjustified in the mode and manner they were taken up under Article 184(3) of the Constitution”. They said that the suo motu notice had been initiated with “undue haste”. “There is no justification to invoke our extraordinary […]
In the dissenting note, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Jamal Mandokhail termed the suo motu proceedings “wholly unjustified in the mode and manner they were taken up under Article 184(3) of the Constitution”. They said that the suo motu notice had been initiated with “undue haste”. “There is no justification to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to initiate suo motu proceedings or entertain petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, as a single Bench of the Lahore High Court has already decided the matter in favour of the petitioner before the said High Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2023 and the said judgment is still in the field.
The intra-court appeals (ICAs) filed against the said judgment are pending before the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (and none of the said petitioners has approached this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution),” said the dissenting note. Both judges were of the view that if a constitutional issue is pending before a high court then the matter “should not be readily interfered with rather be supported to strengthen the provincial autonomy and avoid undermining the autonomy of the provincial constitutional courts”.
“There is no inordinate delay in the proceedings pending before the High Courts, infact the instant proceedings have unnecessarily delayed the matter before the High Courts. However, considering the importance of the matter we expect that the respective High Courts shall decide the matters pending before them within three working days from today,” said the two judges.
