Important legislation including the number of judges for the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance is expected today.
In the meeting, the Cabinet Hajj Policy 2025 will be approved, in which the Federal Cabinet 16, the Senate 39 and the National Assembly 7-point agenda will be considered. All the three meetings are going to be held later this afternoon, the government has directed the MPs to ensure attendance.
The Federal Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will be held at 2:30 PM in which the Cabinet will approve the Hajj Policy 2025. Apart from this, the 16-point agenda includes Islamabad Central Business District Development Authority, appointment of Chairman NIRC, approval of Jammu and Kashmir state property budget.
The meeting of the National Assembly is scheduled at four o’clock in which the 7-point agenda will be considered. Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar will present the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance. Important legislation related to the number of judges is also likely to be passed in the session. The agenda also includes a notice to draw attention to the decline in the Judiciary and Rule of Law Index in global rankings. The Anti-Terrorism Amendment Bill will be approved in the Lower House.
A 39-point agenda has been issued for the Senate meeting to be held at 6 pm, according to which 3 new bills will be presented in the House, 11 standing committee reports will be approved.
#Federal #cabinet #meeting #important #approvals #including #judge #policy #Pakistan
**Interview with Legal Analyst Dr. Aalia Khan**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Khan. We’re anticipating significant developments from the Federal Cabinet meeting set for this afternoon, particularly regarding the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance and the Hajj Policy 2025. What do you think the implications of the proposed changes to the number of judges in the Supreme Court could be for Pakistan’s judiciary?
**Dr. Khan:** Thank you for having me. This is certainly a pivotal moment for Pakistan’s legal landscape. Altering the number of judges can have sweeping implications, from case backlog management to the overall efficacy of the judicial process. A well-structured judiciary is vital for maintaining the rule of law and public trust. We need to consider how these changes could affect judicial independence as well.
**Editor:** That’s an important point. Additionally, the Cabinet meeting is also set to address the alarming decline in the Judiciary and Rule of Law Index. How do you think the government should respond to these concerns in their legislative agenda?
**Dr. Khan:** Addressing the decline in the Judiciary and Rule of Law Index is crucial. The government must focus on transparent reforms, ensuring that the judicial process is not only efficient but also perceived as impartial. Increasing judicial accountability and enhancing the relationship between the judiciary and executive branches could be significant steps forward.
**Editor:** Definitely! There’s a lot riding on today’s discussions. With so many changes being proposed, including the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Bill, what would you say is the most critical aspect that should be prioritized in these legislative efforts?
**Dr. Khan:** Prioritizing the safeguarding of fundamental rights should be at the forefront. Any amendments—especially those related to anti-terrorism—must strike a balance between national security and civil liberties. It’s essential that we do not sacrifice individual rights for the sake of expediency in legislation.
**Editor:** Considering all these factors, what do you think public opinion will lean towards regarding these reforms? Do you foresee any controversy or division in perspectives?
**Dr. Khan:** Absolutely. With legislation that impacts the judiciary and civil rights, public opinion will undoubtedly be divided. While some may see these reforms as necessary steps towards a more functional judicial system, others could view them with skepticism, concerned about potential overreach or lack of protection for citizens. This is a conversation that needs to be had openly in society to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Khan, for sharing your insights. This discussion certainly raises numerous questions. Readers, how do you feel about the potential changes to the judicial system? Are these reforms necessary, or do they pose risks to our civil liberties? Let us know your thoughts!
