Following hearing arguments from all sides, a five-member Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) bigger bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, reserved the ruling. The other members of the bench were Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Athar Minallah, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
Imran Khan, the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), opposed the revisions. He attended the court on Thursday via video link from the Adial jail in Rawalpindi and finished his arguments.
After hearing the last arguments from each party, the SC postponed rendering the decision until a later time that would be determined by the court’s office.
It is important to note that, in response to the PTI founder’s plea, the Supreme Court invalidated changes made to NAB laws.
The top court granted Imran Khan’s appeal, which challenged changes to the nation’s accountability legislation imposed by the previous government led by the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), by a majority vote of 2-1.
In addition, the high court revived graft charges against public officials that had been shelved after NAB legislation changes.
Following that, the Federation of Pakistan, the National Accountability Bureau, and the founder of PTI were named as respondents in the federal government’s review plea filed in the matter under the SC Practice and Procedure Law.
With regard to the NAB modifications, the federal government begged the SC to reconsider its ruling, citing no breach of fundamental rights. “The Parliament has the right to enact laws,” the plea stated.
The appeal for a live broadcast of the case was already denied by the SC.
Read more: Supreme Court To Announce Decision on Lifetime Disqualification Case
The Supreme Court stated in a thorough ruling on the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) that “There is always a possibility that the facility may be misused or exploited for ulterior or personal purposes when live-streaming occurs.” And there’s always the chance of gloating in front of the whole country. This court needs to be on the lookout for such abuse and/or exploitation.
It further stated that when the head of a political party wants to be heard, there is a real probability that these hearings may be used for “political purposes and point scoring” and in respect of matters which do not concern these appeals.