China’s internet obsessed with Moonshot&#82…

Seven professors of the Federal Urdu University’s Gulshan Campus in Karachi have been issued notices in connection with an attempted attack on the university’s security in-charge. Police said the notices were issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The professors have been asked to appear and record their statements regarding the incident. Police clarified that none of the seven professors has been nominated as an accused in the case. The development has, however, triggered a protest among university teachers. Faculty members objected to the inclusion of the seven professors in the investigation. They said the professors hold positions in the teachers’ association representing both campuses of the university. According to the protesting teachers, the professors have been actively raising issues concerning employees’ rights for several months. The teachers said their campaign focuses on unpaid salaries, housing ceiling allowances and pension-related matters. They alleged that the professors were being targeted because they had raised their voices over these issues. The protesters rejected any attempt to link the teachers’ rights campaign with the attack case. They demanded that the investigation should remain fair and should not be used to pressure university employees. The teachers also said their struggle for pending financial benefits would continue. They specifically referred to 27 months of housing ceiling allowances, along with salary and pension-related demands. The faculty members called for the matter to be handled according to law. They also urged authorities to ensure that teachers are not unnecessarily harassed during the investigation. Police, meanwhile, maintained that the notices were issued only to record statements related to the incident. The issuance of notices does not mean that the professors have been formally accused in the case. The investigation into the attack on the university’s security in-charge is continuing. Authorities are expected to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident and determine whether further action is required. The dispute has also highlighted ongoing tensions between university employees and the administration over unresolved financial and service-related matters.

Eight members of the Pakistan Bar Council have criticised the federal government over what they described as a deliberate failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s order regarding the medical treatment of PTI founder Imran Khan. In a joint statement issued on Saturday, the lawyers said the Supreme Court’s August 18 directive was clear and binding. They alleged that the executive had disregarded the order by not transferring Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital as directed. The statement was signed by PBC members including PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, Abid Shahid Zuberi, Muhammad Maqsood Buttar, Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan, Munir Ahmed Kakar, Abdul Sattar Khan, Salahuddin Ahmed and Qazi Muhammad Arshad. The members argued that the executive does not have the authority to ignore a binding judicial order. They said such conduct could undermine the authority of the judiciary, weaken the rule of law and damage the constitutional system of checks and balances. They also expressed concern that ignoring a court order could put fundamental rights at risk. According to the statement, judicial orders provide an important constitutional safeguard against arbitrary actions by state institutions. The lawyers further pointed out that the Supreme Court had already addressed the consequences of non-compliance in its August 18 order. They maintained that the government was aware of its obligations under the ruling. The PBC members also rejected the argument that filing a review petition could suspend the Supreme Court’s directive. They said a review petition does not automatically stop the implementation of an existing court order. They called for those responsible for the alleged violation to be identified and for appropriate legal proceedings to be initiated against them. The statement also raised questions about the impact of recent constitutional amendments on the judiciary and the rule of law. The lawyers argued that no constitutional amendment, political consideration or executive decision could provide legal protection for ignoring a binding Supreme Court order. They further questioned whether the constitutional rights to life, health, dignity and medical treatment were being applied equally to political leaders. The controversy follows the Supreme Court’s August 18 interim order directing authorities to transfer Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital within two days. The court had ordered his examination and treatment by a multidisciplinary medical board. The bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, was hearing petitions seeking hospitalisation, access to personal doctors and family members, and access to Imran’s medical records. The court had also directed that Dr Uzma Khan and Dr Faisal Sultan, Imran’s personal physician, be present during the medical examination. The government subsequently challenged the hospital-transfer order through a review petition. However, the Supreme Court returned the petition after raising objections over the preparation of the documents and the accompanying paper book. Security arrangements were later made around Shifa International Hospital, creating expectations that Imran would be shifted there. However, authorities subsequently took him to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences for a medical examination before returning him to prison. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said the decision was linked to security concerns allegedly created by PTI workers near the hospital. The Pims administration later said specialists from Shifa International Hospital had participated in Imran’s eye assessment, while other examinations were conducted by Pims specialists. The medical issue has been under discussion since Imran was diagnosed with right central retinal vein occlusion, an eye condition, earlier this year.