Jennifer Garner sends heartfelt message as Ben Aff…

The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) has issued an advisory for Pakistani students pursuing or planning to pursue medical and dental education in Afghanistan, warning that graduates from Afghan institutions will not be eligible to practise medicine in Pakistan. According to the advisory, medical and dental graduates from Afghanistan will not be able to obtain registration with the PMDC, making them ineligible to work as licensed healthcare professionals in the country. The council stated that medical institutions in Afghanistan are not included in the recognised list of the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG). As a result, graduates from these institutions will also be barred from appearing in Pakistan’s National Registration Examination (NRE), a mandatory requirement for obtaining a medical licence. PMDC advised Pakistani students to carefully verify whether a foreign medical institution is recognised by the ECFMG before seeking admission. The council stressed that enrolling in an unrecognised institution could prevent graduates from securing professional registration and practising medicine in Pakistan. The advisory aims to help students make informed decisions about pursuing medical education abroad and to avoid academic and professional complications after graduation. PMDC urged aspiring medical students to ensure that any foreign institution they choose meets internationally recognised accreditation standards before finalising their admissions.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that all appeals and bail petitions filed under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law will now be heard by the Federal Constitutional Court. The judgment clarifies that the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction over these matters following amendments made to the accountability law earlier this year. In its detailed written verdict, the court stated that the legal amendments introduced to the NAB law have transferred the authority to hear appeals and bail applications from the Supreme Court to the Federal Constitutional Court. The judges observed that Sections 32 and 32A of the amended NAB law do not empower the Supreme Court to hear such cases. The ruling further states that all pending NAB appeals and bail petitions currently before the Supreme Court will automatically be treated as transferred to the Federal Constitutional Court under the relevant constitutional provisions. This means future proceedings in accountability cases will be conducted by the newly established constitutional forum. The decision also has significant implications for the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), who had challenged a High Court decision regarding his bail before the Supreme Court. His petition had earlier been returned by the Supreme Court Registrar after procedural objections were raised. Following the latest judgment, his bail application will now be heard by the Federal Constitutional Court. The question of jurisdiction emerged during proceedings in another pending NAB case before the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the bench examined whether the court could continue hearing accountability matters after the recent amendments to the NAB law. The amendments, enacted on March 5, 2026, reassigned the authority to hear NAB appeals and bail petitions to the Federal Constitutional Court through Section 32A of the amended law. The changes were introduced as part of broader judicial and constitutional reforms. The case was heard by a three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan as members of the bench. During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Supreme Court should retain the power to hear bail applications in NAB cases. He referred to an earlier post-amendment decision in which the Supreme Court had granted bail in an accountability matter. Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, representing the federal government, argued that all NAB appeals and bail petitions should now be heard exclusively by the Federal Constitutional Court. He maintained that different stages of the same case could not be heard simultaneously by two separate courts, as this would create legal complications and procedural inconsistencies.