سپریم کورٹ مخصوص نشتوں کا بڑا فیصلہ ! سنی اتحاد کونسل وکیل کی فیصلہ پر کمرہ عدالت میں بد تمیزی

The Supreme Court heard objections filed by the Ittehad Council during a special court session. The court addressed four petitions, three of which were objections to the bench formation, while one requested live streaming of the proceedings. After deliberation, the court accepted the live streaming request, citing a previous instance where live streaming had been allowed. The court also rejected the three objections related to the bench. During the session, an incident occurred where Justice Aminuddin Khan reprimanded a lawyer, Faisal Saddique, for his conduct and tone in court. The lawyer later apologized for his behavior. The court's decision and the incident involving the lawyer were both highlighted in the proceedings.

The court continued its deliberations with further legal arguments from various parties. Lawyers discussed the implications of the 26th constitutional amendment and its impact on the ongoing case. The court emphasized the importance of proper conduct and decorum, reminding lawyers to address their arguments to the court rather than directly to opposing counsel. The discussion included references to previous court orders and judgments, such as the Panama case, and the importance of following legal procedures. The court also addressed concerns about the composition of the bench and the need for consistency in legal interpretations. The session highlighted the complexities of constitutional law and the importance of judicial precedent.

The court session focused on the legal provisions related to the 26th constitutional amendment and its impact on the case proceedings. Lawyers debated the applicability of Article 191A and its compatibility with existing court rules. The discussion included references to previous court orders and the need for consistency in legal interpretations. The court emphasized the importance of following established legal procedures and the role of the constitution in guiding judicial decisions. The session highlighted the complexities of constitutional law and the importance of adhering to legal precedents.

The court announced its decision on the live streaming request, allowing it to proceed. The decision was based on the need for transparency and the precedent set by previous live streaming of court proceedings. The court also addressed the future course of action, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that all parties are heard. The session concluded with a discussion on the next steps and the continuation of the case in the following session. The decision on live streaming and the upcoming court actions were highlighted as key points.