Thai Prime Minister And Chinese President Conclude High-level Shanghai Meeting

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reserved its verdict on the maintainability of a petition challenging the delay in the approval of judicial appointments for high courts across the country. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir heard the petition filed by advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhary through his counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry. The petitioner requested the court to direct President Asif Ali Zardari to approve a summary forwarded by the prime minister for the appointment of 19 additional judges and the confirmation of five judges in the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh, Balochistan and Peshawar high courts. During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) had recommended the appointments during its meetings held on July 20 and 21. He said the summary was later sent to the president for approval, but no decision has been made despite the passage of more than two weeks. The counsel maintained that the delay is affecting the functioning of the superior judiciary. He informed the court that the tenure of an additional judge of the Sindh High Court has already expired, while the terms of four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court are expected to end within the coming days. The lawyer also told the court that reports suggest the government may issue notifications regarding the appointments within the next 48 hours. Justice Tahir repeatedly questioned whether a constitutional petition could legally be maintained against the president. He asked the petitioner’s counsel to cite any previous court ruling in which a writ had been issued against the president regarding the exercise of constitutional powers. The court observed that the judgments presented by the petitioner did not support the argument that courts could direct the president in matters governed by Article 48 of the Constitution. Justice Tahir asked whether any legal precedent existed requiring the president to act on such matters through a judicial order. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Article 48 requires the president to act on the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet. He maintained that the president has no independent authority to indefinitely delay judicial appointments once the Judicial Commission has completed its recommendations. The lawyer further argued that the Ministry of Law is the competent authority to issue appointment notifications after the completion of the constitutional process. He claimed that the president’s role in the appointment process is largely formal and that unnecessary delays should not hinder the functioning of the judiciary. The petitioner requested the court to seek responses from the federal government, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Law regarding the status of the pending summary. However, the court declined to issue notices at this stage.

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.