FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 287, column 0: content:encoded should not contain fetchpriority attribute [help]
```
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img  fetchpriority="high"  decodi ...
```

line 287, column 0: content:encoded should not contain decoding attribute [help]

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img  fetchpriority="high"  decodi ...

line 287, column 0: content:encoded should not contain sizes attribute [help]

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img  fetchpriority="high"  decodi ...

Source: https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/feed/

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
>
<channel>
<title>Chief Justice Blog</title>
<atom:link href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com</link>
<description>Independent World's Law News & Analysis</description>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2023 21:21:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-US</language>
<sy:updatePeriod>
hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>
1 </sy:updateFrequency>
<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.1</generator>

<item>
<title>Netchoice sues to block California law designed to protect kids online over free speech</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Americas]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2832</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/">Netchoice sues to block California law designed to protect kids online over free speech</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The California law, which is modeled after regulations in the United Kingdom, intends to set laws that make the internet safer for children.
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/">Netchoice sues to block California law designed to protect kids online over free speech</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/">Netchoice sues to block California law designed to protect kids online over free speech</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>NetChoice, a digital industry consortium comprised of Amazon, Google, Meta, TikTok, and Twitter, stated Wednesday that it is suing California to prevent the state’s new Age-Appropriate Design Code Act from taking effect, claiming that it violates the First Amendment.
The California law, which is modeled after regulations in the United Kingdom, intends to set laws that make the internet safer for children. It mandates that minors have the highest privacy settings enabled by default, and it states that internet services aimed at children under the age of 18 must assess the risk of harm to those users from potentially harmful communications or exploitation.
The complaint joins a growing list of <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/judgments-reports-orders/sc-issues-contempt-of-court-notices-to-five-bureaucrats/">court issues</a> addressing online free expression. In many cases, lawmakers are aiming to reduce the substantial liability protections enjoyed by internet platforms for their content moderation efforts and user submissions.
Concerns about privacy and moderation span partisan lines, but Republicans and Democrats continue to disagree on how to manage them. While the California statute was approved by a Democratic-majority legislature, NetChoice has also sued Texas and Florida over social media restrictions passed by Republican-majority legislatures. These laws attempt to make digital platforms accountable for removing material based on political beliefs.
NetChoice California claims that the new law would hurt youngsters rather than protect them, while also infringing on First Amendment free expression rights by requiring firms to assume the meaning of “inherently subjective phrases” from users.
If the corporations estimate poorly, “the State is able to apply devastating financial penalties,” according to the organization. “The State may also apply such fines if corporations fail to enforce their content moderation guidelines to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.”
According to NetChoice, the law, which is slated to go into effect in July 2024, would create “overwhelming pressure to over-moderate material in <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/lawyersmovement/sc-resumes-karachi-law-and-order-case-hearing/">order to avoid the law</a>‘s sanctions for content deemed damaging by the State.” According to the organization, “over-moderation” will “stifle crucial resources, particularly for vulnerable children who rely on the Internet for life-saving information.”
In an emailed response, a spokeswoman from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office supported the statute.
The bill “provides vital additional protections over the acquisition and use of personal data, as well as works to mitigate some of the actual and established harms connected with social media and other online products and services,” according to the statement. “We are studying the case and anticipate defending this critical children’s safety regulation in court.”
The phrasing of the complaint reflects concerns expressed by a number of civil society organizations about a federal bipartisan measure that also wants to enforce some internet protections for children. Those organizations warned of possible harm to the LGBTQ community’s rights, specifically that the settings of content filters might be impacted by political views.
The senators in charge of the federal legislation attempted to address some of those issues in a new version of the bill revealed Tuesday night, though others were disappointed with the modifications.
NetChoice opposes the Florida and Texas measures because they attempt to weaken the tech industry’s wide liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which preserves the freedom to censor content. Republicans have been attempting to put more regulations on social media businesses in response to what they perceive to be censoring of conservative viewpoints on the most popular sites.
Conservative ideas frequently dominate online debates, according to independent studies. Mainstream platforms have consistently denied discriminatory enforcement of their community standards.
The Supreme Court halted Texas’ version from taking effect in May, but it did not <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/lawyersmovement/decision-on-petition-illegal-appointments-case-ruling-reserved/">rule on the merits of the case</a>, and lower courts have so far blocked Florida’s version.
The Supreme Court might yet decide to <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/lawyersmovement/sc-resumes-karachi-law-and-order-case-hearing/">hear the lawsuits challenging both state laws</a>. Meanwhile, it has indicated that it will <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/lawyersmovement/sc-resumes-karachi-law-and-order-case-hearing/">hear two separate cases</a> next year that involve Section 230 protection and could potentially diminish it.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/">Netchoice sues to block California law designed to protect kids online over free speech</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/netchoice-sues-to-block-california-law-designed-to-protect-kids-online-over-free-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>Indiana has sued TikTok on security and safety concerns</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2022 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Americas]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2836</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/">Indiana has sued TikTok on security and safety concerns</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>According to the lawsuit, the app's algorithm promotes a wide range of improper content, including "images of alcohol, cigarettes, and narcotics; sexual content, nudity, and suggestive themes; and strong profanity
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/">Indiana has sued TikTok on security and safety concerns</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/">Indiana has sued TikTok on security and safety concerns</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The popular social media app TikTok has been sued by the state of Indiana in the United States. Its attorney general, Todd Rokita, has accused TikTok’s parent firm, ByteDance, of breaking consumer protection rules in the state.
The state claims that the software fails to protect young people and their privacy.
TikTok, on the other hand, stated that it prioritizes youth well-being in its policies and is convinced that it can <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/judicial-conferences/national-judicial-committee-meeting/">meet US national</a> security concerns.
On Wednesday, Indiana <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/legislation/7-year-old-files-climate-change-lawsuit-in-supreme-court/">filed two lawsuits</a>. According to the first, the app exposes young users to improper information.
Mr. Rokita also claims in the second <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/judgments-reports-orders/sc-gives-six-options-to-government-in-nro-case/">case that TikTok fails to disclose the Chinese government’s</a> ability to obtain critical customer information.
“TikTok is a wolf in sheep’s clothes,” court filings state.
“As long as TikTok is allowed to mislead and confuse Indiana customers about the threats to their data, those consumers and their privacy will be easy victims.”
According to the lawsuit, the app’s algorithm promotes a wide range of improper content, including “images of alcohol, cigarettes, and narcotics; sexual content, nudity, and suggestive themes; and strong profanity.”
It also promises to fool young users with ratings of 12 and up in the Apple and Google app stores.
Indiana is seeking an injunction against the company’s activities as well as financial damages for its “unfair and misleading conduct.”
According to Mr. Rokita, the <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/lawyersmovement/asghar-khan-case-aslam-beg-files-review-petition/">cases are the first filed</a> by a US state against ByteDance.
“The safety, privacy, and security of our community is our top priority,” according to a TikTok spokeswoman.
According to the corporation, the app incorporates age-limiting and parental control capabilities, and the company is investing in further content restrictions.
In addition, they claimed TikTok was convinced it could handle “any realistic US national security concerns”.
The cases were announced after other US states developed legislation to prohibit TikTok. TikTok usage on state government equipment is restricted in Texas, South Dakota, and South Carolina.
Last month, the FBI’s director stated that TikTok is a national security risk.
According to its director, Chris Wray, Chinese legislation effectively forces firms to “perform whatever the government wants them to in terms of exchanging information or working as an instrument of the Chinese government.”
For months, the Biden administration has been in discussions with TikTok officials in an effort to secure a national security pact to protect the data of its hundreds of millions of US users.
TikTok is also encountering legal issues in other countries. In the United Kingdom, the social media corporation may face a £27 million ($29 million) punishment for failing to protect children’s privacy when they use the site.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/">Indiana has sued TikTok on security and safety concerns</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/americas/indiana-has-sued-tiktok-on-security-and-safety-concerns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>Abusive hashtag is not a crime: Islamabad High Court</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2022 10:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[High Court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Islamabad High Court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2827</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/">Abusive hashtag is not a crime: Islamabad High Court</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The IHC ruled that using a contentious trend's hashtag is not a crime and rejected a comparable FIA case made against a citizen.
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/">Abusive hashtag is not a crime: Islamabad High Court</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/">Abusive hashtag is not a crime: Islamabad High Court</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruled on Saturday that using a contentious trend’s hashtag is not a crime and rejected a similar case filed by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against a citizen.
The IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar granted a motion to dismiss brought by a person named Kashif Fareed. “Because the disputed tweet was not derogatory to any individual, Section 500 and 501 are not invoked in light of the claims in the FIR,” the court ruled.
It went on to say that a complaint under Section 505 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) could only be registered by a federal or provincial government order or by an officer authorized by them, and that the FIR was made “without lawful authority.” He stated in the written decision that just tweeting a trend does not constitute an offense. The ruling further noted that no case could be filed unless anything objectionable was written by the individual who tweeted.
The only reason for filing such a FIR against a person is to restrict free expression and illegal censorship. The FIA has made a mockery of the state by registering this case, according to the court’s decision.
According to the ruling, it is “inconceivable” that the tweet that prompted the complaint against the petitioner could “create fear or panic within the public, prompting a member of the public to conduct an act against the state or against the public.”
The person was concerned that tweeting along with the trend would result in extra-legal action, and the FIA actually initiated a criminal case, which is unthinkable, according to the judgement.
The court’s decision further stated that it was terrible to sow doubts in the minds of the public by this action. Rather than getting engaged in such situations, the judge instructed the FIA and the Interior Ministry to fulfill their core role of safeguarding civilians.
The verdict rendered invalid any challan produced in any court in relation to the case registered against the citizen and its proceedings.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/">Abusive hashtag is not a crime: Islamabad High Court</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/abusive-hashtag-is-not-a-crime-islamabad-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>Robots became Judge in China</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2022 11:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2820</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/">Robots became Judge in China</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>Since 2017, AI-enabled robot judges have been in use in China to hear specialized matters such as trade disputes, e-commerce liability claims, and copyright infringements.
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/">Robots became Judge in China</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/">Robots became Judge in China</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>In a scenario similar to “Robocop”, Chinese researchers have devised an AI that can allegedly recognize crimes and press charges against criminals.
According to the South China Morning Post, the AI was built and tested by the Shanghai Pudong People’s Procratorate, the country’s largest district public prosecution agency. Based on a description of a suspected criminal case, it can submit a charge with greater than 97 percent accuracy.
A robot judge may sound like something out of a science fiction movie. The exponential rise of computing technology, the global craze for big data analytics and machine learning, and the massive amounts of data routinely acquired by the internet of things encompassing nearly everything around us are reshaping our environment at an unprecedented rate. I was reading a 2013 research by CB Frey and M Osbourne of the University of Oxford on the future of work, specifically how sensitive jobs are to computerization.
According to a research on the influence of technology on 702 occupations, attorneys and judges are roughly in the middle of the list of careers that are likely to be replaced by technology. Experts believe that, while breakthroughs in ‘Judge AI’ or ‘Judicial AI’ are still in their early stages, there are signs that it will become increasingly significant. For example, the UK-based AI-driven legal services chatbot ‘DoNotPay’ was founded in 2015 as a ‘robot lawyer’ assisted by IBM’s Watson computer.
According to a 2016 story by ‘The Guardian,’ the chatbot challenged over 250,000 parking charges in London and New York and won 160,000 of them for free. Similarly, Xiaofa, a robot, stands in Beijing No 1 Intermediate People’s Court, delivering legal advice and aiding the general public in grasping legal terms. While ‘AI assistants’ can help courts make judgments by predicting and preparing them, ‘robot judges’ can replace human judges and determine cases autonomously in completely automated court procedures. So, can robots be effective judges?
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="1024" height="576" src="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-1024x576.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-2822" srcset="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-300x169.jpg 300w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-768x432.jpg 768w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-380x214.jpg 380w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-800x450.jpg 800w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-1160x653.jpg 1160w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-760x428.jpg 760w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law-600x338.jpg 600w, https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/robot-law.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" ><figcaption>Robots’ role in law and judiciary is still confusing for many.</figcaption></figure>
renowned AI author and speaker Terence Mauri, of course, believes the robots will detect physical and psychological symptoms of deception with 99.9% accuracy. He predicted that in 50 years, robots will be widespread in civil and criminal courts in England and Wales. Since 2017, AI-enabled robot judges have been in use in China to hear specialized matters such as trade disputes, e-commerce liability claims, and copyright infringements. A robot judge has already handled millions of such cases.
However, the AI gadget analyzes the uploaded material and reaches a decision based on law and facts, rather than robots literally sitting in judges’ chairs. In America, a Jury chatbot project was in the works in Los Angeles. Other courts in the United States are implementing online dispute resolution (ODR) efforts to address a variety of problems. And no talk of technology would be complete without including Estonia, the world’s most sophisticated digital society.
The Estonian Ministry of Justice, on the other hand, has pushed its chief data officer, Velsberg Ott, to create an AI-enabled ‘robot judge’ to decide minor claim disputes of less than 7,000, which might assist in managing paperwork, decision-making, and make court services considerably more efficient. The two parties will upload papers and other pertinent evidence here as well, and the AI will make a judgment that may be challenged to a human court.
There are certainly benefits and drawbacks to using AI in the courtroom. A judge’s job is a difficult one. And the line between technology and people must be drawn carefully. In a 2018 study titled ‘Do Judges Need to Be Human? Tania Sourdin of the University of Newcastle, Australia, and Richard Cornes of the University of Essex noted in ‘The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging’: “The job of the human judge, however, is not solely that of a data processor.” To limit judgment to such a notion would be to deny not just the judge’s humanity, but also the humanity of all individuals who appear before them.”
Again, a 2019 study published in the journal ‘Legal Studies’ casts doubt on the likelihood of advanced computer technology replacing judges. The research raises concerns regarding the ability of algorithmic techniques to completely penetrate this socio-legal environment and accurately imitate the activity of judging.
In December 2018, Justice Surya Kant, then Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and now a Supreme Court judge, expressed his concern: “If e-technology is allowed to overpower the judicial field without any ‘Lakshman Rekha,’ are we marching towards a stage where robots will be used in place of judicial officers?”
In a 2018 interview, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was asked if he could envision a day “when sophisticated robots, powered by artificial intelligence, can aid with courtroom fact discovery or, more controversially, judicial decision making.” “It’s a day that’s here, and it’s placing a substantial pressure on how the judiciary goes about its business,” Justice Roberts answered. Was the case of Eric Loomis at the back of Justice Roberts’ mind?
Eric Loomis was discovered driving a car that had been involved in a shooting in 2013. The Wisconsin Supreme Court convicted and sentenced Loomis to six years in prison in 2016, based at least in part on the advice of a private company’s secret proprietary software called COMPAS, which operates using an algorithm that examines some of the responses to a 137-item questionnaire.
Loomis, on the other hand, filed a certiorari petition, claiming that his constitutional right to due process was violated since neither he nor his attorneys were able to evaluate or contest the accuracy and scientific validity of the algorithm underpinning the suggestion.
It further claimed that the method in issue violates due process rights by considering gender and race. The US Supreme Court, however, declined the writ of certiorari in June 2017, therefore declining to hear the case. Well, the case clearly raised some serious problems, and it is still brought up in every serious discussion of an AI-powered courtroom. When an AI proposes what a judge should do, one must establish what cognitive biases are at work. A recent study by Joanna Bryson, a computer science professor at the University of Bath, indicates that such biases are conceivable.
Using a prediction algorithm in instances involving human sentencing and verdicts is not the same as advising which movie to see next. As a result, the potential and risks of AI-driven judgments are unlimited!
The ‘PreCrime’ police department in Steven Spielberg’s 2002 film ‘Minority Report,’ set in Washington DC in 2054, is capable of anticipating future crimes via data mining and predictive analysis. However, when a system officer is accused of a future crime, he sets out to establish his innocence! Is this Spielberg picture a vision of the future of AI-powered courtrooms? And, finally, will the future be dismal or reforming?The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/">Robots became Judge in China</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/asia/robots-became-judge-in-china/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>Imran Khan has been deposed as the prime minister of Pakistan</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2022 20:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Imran Khan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2810</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/">Imran Khan has been deposed as the prime minister of Pakistan</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>In a historic first for Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan was removed from office via a no-confidence resolution…
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/">Imran Khan has been deposed as the prime minister of Pakistan</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/">Imran Khan has been deposed as the prime minister of Pakistan</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>In a historic first for Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan was removed from office via a no-confidence resolution after the National Assembly debated the topic for more than 12 hours as the country’s political situation deteriorated.
After speaker Asad Qasier resigned, the session was led by Ayaz Sadiq, a member of the panel of chairs.
“174 members voted in favour of the resolution, and as a result, the resolution for the vote of no-confidence against Mr Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, has been carried by a majority,” Ayaz Sadiq declared after the voting process was concluded.
Speaking at the event, PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif said that the country was entering a new era and thanked the united Opposition leaders for their efforts in unifying the parties against the government.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">“We can’t thank Allah enough for letting us see this new day,”<cite>Shahbaz Sharif</cite></blockquote>
He praised the Opposition for their patience and specifically thanked former President Asif Zardari, JUI-F chairman Maulana Fazlur Rehman, and numerous other party leaders for their assistance.
When Qasier announced his resignation, the majority of Treasury members rose up and left the House, giving the Opposition in the National Assembly a decisive majority on the motion even before a vote was taken.
Despite the PTI government’s frantic efforts to delay voting on Imran Khan’s no-confidence motion, the historic session of the National Assembly to decide his destiny began on Saturday at 10:30 a.m.
The scenario occurred after the session was summoned at 10:30 a.m. — in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order — and saw at least four breaks with the government seeking a way out of the dilemma, but the Opposition was able to get its way in the end.
Many people speculated that Chief of Army Staff Qamar Javed Bajwa would be removed, but Imran Khan denied the rumours and nothing of the type happened.
Imran Khan was elected on August 18, 2018, and his tenure runs through April 10, 2022. He was in office for 3 years, 7 months, and 23 days.
Two prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Shaukat Aziz, faced no-confidence motions, but both beat them and remained in office, making Imran Khan the first premier to be voted out – on Constitution Day in Pakistan (April 10).
<h3 id="after-the-session-begins-the-supreme-court-judges-return-home" class="wp-block-heading">After the session begins, the Supreme Court judges return home</h3>
The larger bench of Pakistan’s Supreme Court has returned home after the National Assembly session to vote out Imran Khan as prime minister began.
The case on the ruling of NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri was due to be heard by the top court’s five-member bigger bench, which was led by Chief Justice Bandial and included Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.
As the government failed to begin voting on the no-confidence motion, the CJP ordered the highest court to remain open after hours. But, just before 12 a.m., Asad Qaiser resigned as NA speaker and turned over control of the proceedings to MNA Ayaz Sadiq.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) late Saturday night petitioned the Supreme Court for the enforcement of its April 7 ruling.
“As a result of the abovementioned order of this August Court, the National Assembly has been called to assemble on April 9, 2022.” However, on that date, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and in his absence, Mr Amjad Ali Khan (Chairperson), failed to carry out the ruling of this August Court in Suo Moto Case No. 01 of 2022. Specifically, instead of voting on the move for a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister, the Speaker and Chairperson had a discussion on the issue. “It is worth noting that a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister was on the agenda of the National Assembly on March 31, 2022, as represented by the Order of the Day for that day,” read the petition.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The SCBA argued in its petition that by not holding the vote on the no-confidence motion, the “speaker, deputy speaker, and chairpersons from the PTI were “determined to frustrate” the top court’s ruling.</blockquote>
The SCBA has requested that the court “restrain the speaker, deputy speaker, and chairpersons/chairwoman, namely, Amjad Ali Khan, Munaza Hassan, and Imran Khattak, from chairing the meeting and/or acting as the speaker in the current Session being held to implement” the court’s orders on the no-confidence motion.
The lawyer’s group has also petitioned the Supreme Court to order the secretary of the National Assembly to convene a session of Parliament headed by MNAs who are not members of the PTI.
It has also asked the court to “restrain the prime minister or the Federal Government from making any order” that would be in violation of the court’s April 7 judgement.
“Restrain the President of Pakistan from acting in accordance with any advice offered by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet until the order of this August Court dated 07-04-2022 is completely implemented and complied with,” the petition read. It has also asked the court to “command all state authorities” to assist in carrying out the injunction.
“Restrain all State Functionaries from taking any extra-constitutional measures that are contrary to the principles laid out in this Court’s judgement in the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association vs. Federation of Pakistan etc., reported as PLD 2009 SC 879; Any other order that this August Court deems appropriate, under the circumstances,” the plea concludes.
On April 3, NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri dismissed the no-confidence resolution, and on the advice of the premier, President Arif Alvi dissolved the lower house of parliament – essentially losing the majority in the NA.
Nonetheless, despite the government’s efforts to reject the no-confidence motion against the prime minister, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the issue and overturned all of the rulings.
On April 7, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reinstated the National Legislature after declaring the government’s move to dissolve the assembly and Suri’s judgement to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court had directed Speaker Qasier to convene the session on Saturday at 10:30 a.m. to enable for a vote on the <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/even-if-the-speaker-invokes-article-5-no-confidence-motion-cannot-be-dismissed-cjp/">no-confidence motion</a> against the premier.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/">Imran Khan has been deposed as the prime minister of Pakistan</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/imran-khan-has-been-deposed-as-the-prime-minister-of-pakistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>Petition filed before the IHC to avoid imposition of martial law</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2022 18:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2803</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/">Petition filed before the IHC to avoid imposition of martial law</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>According to Geo News, a petition has been filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to avoid the…
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/">Petition filed before the IHC to avoid imposition of martial law</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/">Petition filed before the IHC to avoid imposition of martial law</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>According to Geo News, a petition has been filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to avoid the introduction of martial law in the country as the country’s political situation deteriorates.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan directed National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser to hold voting on the no-confidence motion today, but he has yet to enable legislators to vote on the motion against the prime minister.
According to Sources, if the top court’s order is not obeyed someplace, the high court of that jurisdiction takes note.
“Does the prime minister have the ability to remove the army chief without substantial reasoning the Supreme Court, in its judgement, had written that any steps taken by the premier shall be in accordance with the court’s decision,” counsel Adnan Iqbal said in his petition.
“can the prime minister remove the army chief to achieve his political goals?” the petition stated.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Imran Khan has denied rumors that he fired Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa, according to reliable sources.
On the other side, the <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/supreme-court-constitutional-crisis-hearing-adjourned-till-apr-5/">Supreme Court</a> Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a petition at the Supreme Court against the government for failing to follow the supreme court’s directives — and the case is set to be heard at 12:05 a.m.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/">Petition filed before the IHC to avoid imposition of martial law</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/petition-filed-before-the-ihc-to-avoid-imposition-of-martial-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>SCP larger bench to hear the case at 12:05AM, Apr. 10</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2022 04:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Imran Khan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2807</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/">SCP larger bench to hear the case at 12:05AM, Apr. 10</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>Following the government’s tactics to postpone voting on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, a larger…
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/">SCP larger bench to hear the case at 12:05AM, Apr. 10</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/">SCP larger bench to hear the case at 12:05AM, Apr. 10</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>Following the government’s tactics to postpone voting on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan, a larger bench of Pakistan’s Supreme Court is slated to hear the case.
The case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court’s five-member bigger bench, which is led by Justice Bandial and includes Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) late Saturday night petitioned the Supreme Court for the enforcement of its April 7 order.
“As a result of the abovementioned order of this August Court, the National Assembly has been summoned to assemble on April 9, 2022.” However, on that date, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and in his absence, Mr Amjad Ali Khan (Chairperson), failed to carry out the ruling of this August Court in Suo Moto Case No. 01 of 2022. Specifically, instead of voting on the move for a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister, the Speaker and Chairperson held a discussion on the issue. “It is worth noting that a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister was on the agenda of the National Assembly on March 31, 2022, as represented by the Order of the Day for that date,” read the petition.
The SCBA argued in its petition that by not holding the vote on the <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/even-if-the-speaker-invokes-article-5-no-confidence-motion-cannot-be-dismissed-cjp/">no-confidence motion</a>, the “speaker, deputy speaker, and chairpersons from the PTI were “determined to frustrate” the top court’s ruling.
The SCBA has requested that the court “restrain the speaker, deputy speaker, and chairpersons/chairwoman, namely, Amjad Ali Khan, Munaza Hassan, and Imran Khattak, from chairing the meeting and/or acting as the speaker in the current Session being held to implement” the court’s orders on the no-confidence motion.
The lawyer’s group has also petitioned the Supreme Court to order the secretary of the National Assembly to convene a session of Parliament chaired by MNAs who are not members of the PTI.
It has also asked the court to “restrain the prime minister or the Federal Government from passing any order” that would be in violation of the court’s April 7 judgement.
“Restrain the President of Pakistan from acting in accordance with any advice offered by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet until the order of this August Court dated 07-04-2022 is completely implemented and complied with,” the petition read. It has also asked the court to “command all state functionaries” to assist in carrying out the injunction.
“Restrain all State Functionaries from taking any extra-constitutional measures that are contrary to the principles laid out in this Court’s judgement in the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association vs. Federation of Pakistan etc., reported as PLD 2009 SC 879; Any other order that this August Court deems appropriate, under the circumstances,” the plea concludes.
On April 3, NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri dismissed the no-confidence resolution, and on the advice of the premier, President Arif Alvi dissolved the lower house of parliament – essentially losing the majority in the NA.
Nonetheless, despite the government’s efforts to reject the no-confidence motion against the prime minister, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the matter and overturned all of the decisions.
On April 7, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reinstated the National Assembly after declaring the government’s move to dissolve the assembly and Suri’s judgement to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court had directed Speaker Qasier to convene the session on Saturday at 10:30 a.m. to enable for a vote on the no-confidence motion against the premier.
However, the decision has yet to be executed.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/">SCP larger bench to hear the case at 12:05AM, Apr. 10</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/scp-larger-bench-to-hear-the-case-at-1205am-apr-10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>The IHC rules against the PECA ordinance</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 18:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[High Court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Imran Khan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Islamabad High Court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2800</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/">The IHC rules against the PECA ordinance</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruled on Friday that revisions to the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) made…
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/">The IHC rules against the PECA ordinance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/">The IHC rules against the PECA ordinance</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruled on Friday that revisions to the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) made by an ordinance enacted in February this year were “unconstitutional.”
The verdict was issued by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah during a hearing on petitions brought by the Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) and other media organisations against the PECA law.
Section 20 of the PECA statute was deemed “null and void” by Justice Minallah in a four-page order.
The IHC has also ordered a probe into the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) abuse of power under the PECA law, and the interior secretary has been required to provide a report in this regard within 30 days.
The court ruled that the cases filed under Section 20 of the PECA had been dismissed.
PFUJ plans a ‘Black Day’ against the PECA Ordinance on February 28.
According to the IHC, the government is expected to revise defamation regulations because freedom of expression is one of the essential rights.
“Access to information and the freedom to express opinions are essential for a thriving society,” the judgement stated, adding that efforts to undermine these rights were counter to the democratic spirit and the Constitution.
The interior secretary was required to begin an investigation into the conduct of the FIA’s cybercrime personnel due to the government agency’s pervasive abuse of authority.
It went on to say that the PECA ordinance violated Articles 9, 14, 19, and 19-A of the Constitution.
“The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022, and its promulgation are declared illegal, invalid beyond reasonable doubt, and it is thus stricken down,” the judgement stated.
“The crime under section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 to the extent of the words “or affects the reputation” and the punishment therefor are unconstitutional, invalid beyond reasonable doubt, and are thus struck down,” it added.
The court further determined that the proceedings against the petitioners in the related petitions are therefore null and void. “However, aggrieved complainants would be free to pursue the remedies available under the relevant statutes in the context of defamation.”
The court expects the federal government to evaluate defamation laws, particularly the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and then propose suitable legislation to parliament to ensure their effective implementation.
Read MQM-P leader advises PM Imran to abandon the notion of changing the PECA.
The judgement was applauded by the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE). According to CPNE President Kazim Khan, constitutional supremacy requires an independent judiciary.
President Dr Arif Alvi issued the PECA law in February of this year, making online public defamation a cognisable and non-bailable offence, as well as increasing the jail penalty for defaming any person or organisation from three to five years.
Section 20, which pertains to the registration of complaints against individuals by aggrieved parties over defamation, was a bailable and non-criminal offence prior to the ordinance’s implementation.
The judge chastised FIA Cyber Crime Wing Director General Babar Bakht Qureshi for monitoring journalists, expressing his unhappiness.
“Does the FIA have any responsibility to monitor journalists?”
The FIA officers presented the court with a report on its directives at the start of the session. The top justice of the International Court of Justice stated that someone must be held accountable for violations of basic human rights. The FIA had provided standard operating procedures (SOPs) to the court, but they were also disregarded, according to the court.
The IHC observed that the department had incorporated PECA sections in different complaints despite the fact that they were not applicable in those cases.
The DG of the FIA Cyber Crime Wing said that a statute had been drafted and that the department was under enormous pressure to put it into effect.
According to Justice Minallah, a case was filed against an individual in Islamabad, they were arrested in Lahore, and the raid was carried out in the federal capital. He went on to say that the local cops were equally to blame in this situation.
“Have you ever done something similar for a simple man?” If you had, the court would have sided with you in this instance.”
According to the FIA official, in other cases, the department arrested the accused prior to the filing of the first information report (FIR), and the charges were filed after they were recovered.
Justice Minallah expressed his displeasure with this behaviour and inquired as to what law the FIA could use to arrest someone in this fashion. “The FIA even has no regrets about its practise and continues to make arguments in its favour,” the court remarked.
After hearing the arguments, the court deferred its decision and later dismissed the PECA revisions. The court stated that freedom of expression was a fundamental human right and that access to knowledge was essential for a society’s prosperity.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/">The IHC rules against the PECA ordinance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/the-ihc-rules-against-the-peca-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>NA restored, Dept. Speaker Ruling declared null & void – Supreme Court</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 15:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Imran Khan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2792</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/">NA restored, Dept. Speaker Ruling declared null & void – Supreme Court</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The Supreme Court of Pakistan reinstated the National Legislature on Thursday after determining that the government's move to dissolve the assembly and NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri's ruling against the Constitution were unconstitutional.
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/">NA restored, Dept. Speaker Ruling declared null & void – Supreme Court</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/">NA restored, Dept. Speaker Ruling declared null & void – Supreme Court</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>The decision of the National Assembly Deputy Speaker to dismiss the no-confidence motion against the Imran Khan administration was deemed “unconstitutional” by a five-judge bench of the Pakistan Supreme Court.
In defiance of President Arif Alvi’s decision to dissolve Pakistan’s lower house of parliament, the bench has ordered the National Assembly’s restoration. Furthermore, opposition parties have been granted authority to stage a no-confidence vote against the Imran Khan administration.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">The decree for new elections has also been ruled “null and invalid”.<cite>Supreme Court Pakistan.</cite></blockquote>
“Because the prime minister lacked the authority to urge the president to dissolve the assembly, all decisions made to date have been declared null and void,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court has directed National Assembly Speaker Asad Qasier to convene the session on Saturday (April 9) at 10 a.m. to vote on the no-confidence resolution against the premier.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">If the no-confidence motion against the prime minister is successful, the parliament will pick the new prime minister.<cite> The order from the Supreme Court stated.</cite></blockquote>
Umar Ata Bandial, Pakistan’s Chief Justice, had stated that the court will proceed only after considering national interest and realistic possibilities.
As the Supreme Court started deliberations on Suri’s “unconstitutional” behavior for the sixth consecutive day today, the top justice emphasized that the deputy speaker’s judgment is, prima facie, a breach of Article 95.
The case is being heard by the Supreme Court’s five-member bigger bench, which is led by Justice Bandial and includes Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/">NA restored, Dept. Speaker Ruling declared null & void – Supreme Court</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/na-restored-deputy-speaker-ruling-declared-null-and-void-supreme-court-pakistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>No decision on NA proceedings, SC adjourns hearing again</title>
<link>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/</link>
<comments>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah Peracha]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Imran Khan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/?p=2787</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/">No decision on NA proceedings, SC adjourns hearing again</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>For the fourth day in a row, the Supreme Court deferred the hearing on the "unconstitutional" ruling by National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri to obstruct the vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/">No decision on NA proceedings, SC adjourns hearing again</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/">No decision on NA proceedings, SC adjourns hearing again</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a> <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/editorinchief/sarahperacha/">Sarah Peracha</a>As the Supreme Court started hearing the case on Wednesday, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial stated that the Supreme Court intends to conclude the matter today.
The CJP had taken suo motu notice of the constitutional crisis that occurred after Suri barred voting on the motion, calling it “illegal” – a decision that the Opposition called blatantly unconstitutional.
The arguments of the other respondents are being heard by the top court’s five-member bigger bench, which is led by Justice Bandial and includes Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.
At the start of the hearing, PML-N lawyer Nazeer Tarar stated that the Punjab advocate-general had promised him that the provincial assembly session will take place today.
“The deputy speaker’s directions of the Punjab Assembly are not being followed.”
In response, CJP Bandial stated that a very significant matter is now being handled in this court.
“First and foremost, we want to close the case on what transpired in the NA on April 3,” the CJP stated.
Tarar, on the other hand, said that “the Punjab Assembly’s argument is an extension of Islamabad’s case.”
At this point, the chief justice stated that unfavourable remarks are being made about the court, and that the court is delaying the subject.
“We must make a decision after hearing everyone’s point of view.” would look at the Punjab assembly issue in the end.”
The court, according to CJP Bandial, would question the Punjab advocate-general under what rule the Assembly session was adjourned.
‘No one has been labelled a traitor in relation to Article 5’: CJP
Meanwhile, PTI attorney Babar Awan started his remarks, stating that he wishes to present some issues to the court.
“I feel that in this situation, no issue will be overlooked.”
Awan and counsels for the other respondents — the PPP, the PML-N, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Sindh High Court Bar, the Attorney General of Pakistan, and the Advocate General of Punjab — had also submitted their arguments before the court on Tuesday.
Today, Awan alluded to Justice Faez Isa’s ruling on minorities.
He disputed that, in this scenario, all political parties are parties, with the exception of the MQM-P, PTM, Balochistan Awami Party, Jamat-e-Islami, and Rah-e-Haq parties.
He went on to argue that the issue is about whether or not the NA speaker’s actions were unlawful.
“The political parties argue that they have been labelled traitors in accordance with Article 5 of the Constitution.” […]. Article 2 was to be interpreted by the court.”
At this point, CJP Bandial noted that no one has been labelled a traitor in relation to Article 5, but the action conducted in accordance with Article 5 has been labelled as treason. He stated that the Constitution is a document in which the clauses and parts are read in tandem.
“Article 95 has a unique meaning,” the court remarked. According to Awan, no one mentioned Article 63A.
“They [the opposition] claim to be fighting to defend parliamentary democracy. In a news conference that he held without having read the National Security Committee’s verdict, PML-N President [Shahbaz Sharif] urged the establishment of a committee.”
According to Awan, the combined Opposition wants the court to make a short order in their favour. He stated that the complaint parties want the National Security Committee reference in the judgement to be overlooked in this matter.
A British court’s decision was given. I’ll let you know if it’s applicable here or not. “The Pakistani Constitution was drafted with an Islamic perspective in mind.” Pakistan is not like other countries.”
He insisted that the speaker and deputy speaker could not remain mute in the face of the “foreign plot.” “The [NA] speaker and deputy speaker are obligated to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.”
The CJP then said that an allegation had been levelled in this instance. As the deputy speaker had taken a step, he requested the lawyer to come to the facts.
“A no-confidence vote is a constitutional procedure.” “Does the speaker have the authority to obstruct a constitutional process?” the CJP inquired.
Hearing on Lettergate behind closed doors. Meanwhile, the PTI’s counsel requested an in-camera hearing on the Lettergate.
At this point, the attorney general stated that a lawyer for a political party should not make foreign policy arguments. The CJP agreed with the attorney general that the court did not wish to become involved in foreign policy problems.
Babar Awan demands a judicial commission. Babar Awan asked the Supreme Court to convene a judicial panel to uncover the individuals responsible for the attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty.
According to the PTI’s counsel, questionable facts should be scrutinised, and the Memogate affair processes are still ongoing. In response to the lawyer’s request, Justice Mandokhel stated:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote">“Your client, the Prime Minister, wishes to establish a commission.” That is, he has no idea who is participating [in the foreign conspiracy].”<cite>– Justice Mandokhel </cite></blockquote>
The court inquired whether Awan’s client took such a drastic move without understanding the information.
Awan responded by saying that Prime Minister Imran Khan does not want to speak about what he knows for the benefit of Pakistan’s interests.
“Investigation is required if the facts are contentious.” [The] prime minister is not the investigator, thus this work should be performed by appropriate individuals.”
“You’re making assumptions in your reasoning,” Justice Ahsan said.
According to CJP Bandial, the court needed to be schooled about parliamentary democracy.
“We need to wrap up this matter and finish the hearing as quickly as possible.”
The CJP ordered Awan to submit the relevant details. He also inquired as to where the phrase “national interest” appears in the NA speaker’s oath.
In response to the question, Awan noted that the pledge of national security, defence, and allegiance is specified in the oath, which is believed to be in the national interest.
Meanwhile, CJP questioned Awan whether he feels the no-confidence resolution can be rejected without conducting an election.
“This is the first thing you brought up in your arguments. “You’re suggesting that according to the NA rules, the no-trust resolution may be rejected without a vote,” he commented.
Justice Ahsan pointed out that the <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/even-if-the-speaker-invokes-article-5-no-confidence-motion-cannot-be-dismissed-cjp/">speaker can only reject the motion</a> if he has not given leave.
“Once the no-confidence motion is brought in court, it can only be defeated by a vote.”
Furthermore, when questioned if Rule 28 applies to the deputy speaker, Awan remained silent.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar asked if a speaker may preside over a session if he is the subject of a no-confidence motion.
Awan makes arguments in regard to Article 63A.
According to Awan, the institution where horse-trading occurs creates laws and norms for the country.
CJP Bandial enquired as to what correction in politics entailed.
“Under Article 63A, being de-seated is a consequence. “You claim a severe penalty is required,” he said.
“If your members are defecting from the party, the Supreme Court cannot rule on it.” Instead, it must rule on the proclamation of the Election Commission of Pakistan,” the court stated.
Justice Mandokhel stated that a party should consider why individuals are leaving it.
“We took an oath to defend the Constitution.” “The court will make a judgement for the people, and everyone will be bound by it,” he continued.
The Constitution has precedence over NA regulations, according to the CJP.
During Tuesday’s session, the top judge stated that constitutional directives take precedence over National Assembly norms.
He said that when the no-confidence resolution against Prime Minister Imran Khan was tabled, the majority of lawmakers (20%) were present in the National Assembly.
“The Constitutional right cannot be ignored on the basis of NA Rules.”
In today’s hearing, CJP Bandial asked NA speaker’s counsel Naeem Bokhari to deliver the minutes of the key NA session conducted on March 31 to debate the no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
He also asked Bokhari to assist the court with papers in the next hearing on whether Suri was granted the authority to make the judgement or not.
“The establishment of a caretaker administration is subject to the court’s processes […] we aim to finish the matter today,” CJP Bandial said during the hearing.
“Instead of loyalties, the court will declare the judgement based on the law and the Constitution.”
He stated that the Supreme Court will issue an order once all parties have finished their arguments.
The Supreme Court takes action on its own initiative.
CJP Bandial had taken ad hoc notice of the <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/supreme-court-constitutional-crisis-hearing-adjourned-till-apr-5/">constitutional crisis</a> that had emerged as a result of the occurrence. The judge stated in a written decision delivered at the hearing on Sunday that his other judges approached him and voiced worry about the situation.
“Any directives and acts taken by Prime Minister Imran Khan and President Arif Alvi regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly must be subject to the order of this court,” CJP Bandial stated on Sunday after receiving the notice.
Previously, the Supreme Court barred state institutions from adopting any extra-constitutional actions and urged them to behave rigorously in line with the Constitution, while also urging all political forces in the country to stay peaceful.
Petition of the opposition
The combined Opposition has also filed a petition to overturn the deputy speakers’ order, which delayed the National Assembly session indefinitely after Suri cancelled voting on the no-confidence vote, calling it “unconstitutional.”
According to the United Opposition’s appeal, the speaker should be instructed to call the session today because “the deputy speaker cannot adjourn the session since it is unlawful.”
Furthermore, the Opposition has filed a suit for constitutional violations against President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan, Speaker NA Asad Qaiser, and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri.
SCBA’s petition
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has petitioned the Supreme Court over the constitutional problem.
The constitutional petition filed by SCBA states that a voting of no-confidence motion was a must, and the speaker cannot cancel the voting by a ruling.
It was further noted that the deputy speaker’s ruling contradicts Article 95(2). It went on to say that under Article 58(1), the premier cannot even “advise dissolution of the parliament” if a no-confidence resolution is lodged against him or her.
According to sources close to the situation, the case will be heard by a special bench of the Supreme Court.The post <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/">No decision on NA proceedings, SC adjourns hearing again</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com">Chief Justice Blog</a>.]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.chiefjusticeblog.com/pk/no-decision-on-na-proceedings-sc-adjourns-hearing-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//www.chiefjusticeblog.com/feed/"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//www.chiefjusticeblog.com/feed/

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms