- Court maintains registrar’s objections on plea being inadmissible.
- Constitutional bench transfers another case back to regular bench.
- SC throws out petition filed over registration of multiple FIRs.
ISLAMABAD: A seven-member Supreme Court constitutional bench on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the extension of the tenure of the army chief.
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan-led bench rejected the petition over non-pursuance, whereas, the SC registrar’s office’s objections regarding the plea being inadmissible were also maintained.
The SC bench also includes Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Musarrat Hilali.
The development comes as the ruling coalition, earlier this month, amended the laws — via the Pakistan (Army/Air Force/Navy) Act Amendment, 2024 — that dealt with all three branches of the armed forces, extending the fixed tenure of services chiefs up to five years.
Regarding the retirement age and service limits of services chiefs, including chief of army staff (COAS), chief of naval staff (CNS) and chief of air staff (CAS), the bill read that the criteria prescribed for the senior military officers “shall not be applicable” to the army, navy and air force heads during their “tenure of appointment, reappointment and/or extension”.
The government also amended Section 8C, which deals with the retirement age, which is 64 years, and service limits of service chiefs.
Multiple FIRs on one incident
The bench also held a hearing on a case involving the registration of two first information reports (FIRs) for a single incident.
During the proceedings, the court declared the petition inadmissible and subsequently dismissed it.
Justice Mandokhail highlighted that cases like these have significantly contributed to the backlog of 60,000 pending cases in the judiciary.
He also remarked that the court is repeatedly reminded of this mounting number and questioned why the petition should not be dismissed with a penalty.
Addressing the petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession, Justice Mandokhail criticised the filing of such cases.
Meanwhile, Justice Mazhar referred to the Sughran Bibi case and noted that the court had already ruled on the matter.
He further questioned the petitioner on why they had not approached the High Court to seek the dismissal of the second FIR.
Transfer of cases to regular bench
A three-member bench, led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, had transferred two cases from the regular bench to the constitutional bench.
However, during the hearing today, the seven-member constitutional bench decided to transfer the case back to the regular bench.
During the proceedings, Justice Ayesha clarified that the petitioner’s lawyer had requested the case be sent to the constitutional bench, and it was done at their behest.
Justice Mazhar expressed that not every case should be sent to the constitutional bench, suggesting that cases involving constitutional questions should be the exception.
In a related development, a case concerning a housing society was also transferred back from the constitutional bench to the regular bench. Justice Ayesha noted that cases often shift from one bench to another, highlighting the complexities involved in such transfers.
The lawyer for the opposing party had requested that the case be referred to the constitutional bench, though the petitioner’s lawyer, Salman Aslam, clarified that they had not made such a request.
