Rana Sanaullah is a known leader in the PMLN and serves as the Prime Minister’s advisor on political affairs. In an interview, he expressed his concerns about Pakistan’s supreme court and sports infrastructure. Sanaullah, while speaking on a television program, stated that Supreme Court judges should focus on interpreting laws rather than giving speeches or engaging in debates, as their primary duty is to analyze the law. He also noted that the Judiciary has no right whatsoever to go against acts passed by parliament or even debate over legislative matters.
Apart from this criticism towards the Judiciary, Rana Sanaullah also talked more generally about sports within his country, where he pointed out the lack of international standard facilities across Pakistan, which he believed were hampering development among athletes and overall potentiality in games for his nation. In light of these observations, he called upon establishing the provincial academy’s equipped world-class coaching plus facilities. He said that current ones needed to be up to the standards of modern-day needs. Sports federations were another target area for condemnation by Sanaullah, who said many people ended up there after exhausting other career options but showed little commitment towards their duties.ISPs accountable for slow Internet services
Siddiqui questions the independence of the Judiciary
Separately but relatedly, PML-N senator Irfan Siddiqui has questioned adherence to constitutional principles of the Judiciary following a statement made by its member, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, who, according to Irfan, tweeted asking whether it is mandatory under constitutionality for courts always to make decisions based on existing statutes, only adding that they need not rewrite them in any way different from what is provided therein.
The tweet further stressed worry over the perceived imbalance when such actions are taken; arguing can disrupt this framework altogether. If so, which article allows judges to override specific sections like those highlighted above? This implies there should be a balance between independence and accountability; otherwise, we risk destroying the very foundations upon which democracy thrives. Irfan raised the question of whether or not it is a constitutional requirement that all cases must align with the Constitution and other laws as they stand now before proceeding to challenge the notion of giving room for discretion where there is none more so deviating from explicit constitutional provisions, which may necessitate rewriting whole document according to its understanding.
