After a period of extreme humidity, rainfall stormed over Lahore, bringing cooler weather and causing major power outages.

During the downpour, more than 70 Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) feeders tripped, leaving families inconvenienced and without electricity in numerous neighborhoods.

Abbott Road, Lakshmi Chowk, Shimla Pahari, Jail Road, Upper Mall, Mughalpura, Tajpura, Chowk Nakhuda, Pani Wala Talab, Farrukhabad, Gulshan Ravi, Samanabad, Shadipura, and Saggian were among the areas of the provincial capital where rain was reported, according to the Pakistan Meteorological Department.

Saggian had the most rainfall (40.2 millimeters), followed by Pani Wala Talab (39.2 millimeters), Chowk Nakhuda (37.4 millimeters), and Lakshmi Chowk (35 millimeters). It rained 17 millimeters at Farrukhabad.

Gulshan Ravi recorded 4.2 millimeters, while Mughalpura and Samanabad each received 4.6 millimeters. It rained 3 millimeters at Upper Mall, 2.2 millimeters at Tajpura, and 1 mm at Shadipura and Jail Road. There were reports of light rains in a number of different locations.

Over 70 feeders in LESCO’s energy distribution network tripped during the weather system due to the rains. Numerous technical issues were also brought on by the disturbance, which cut off the power supply in some areas of the city.

Qila Gujjar Singh, Samanabad, Walton Road, RA Bazaar, Harbanspura, Shalimar, Aamir Town, Baghbanpura, Shahdara, and a number of locations within Lahore’s Walled City reported power outages. As repair work proceeded, the extended disruptions caused homeowners considerable inconvenience.

The Federal Constitutional Court has decided that only the court may decide whether a constitutional petition is appropriate to be heard, and that a registrar cannot pronounce that a petition is inadmissible or return it for that reason.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi made the decision in a six-page written judgment on a chamber appeal that was submitted in response to the registrar’s office’s objections. The court clarified the boundaries of the office’s authority when handling constitutional petitions and characterized the registrar’s function as essentially administrative.

Only administrative or procedural objections may be raised by the registrar’s office, per the ruling. A petition may only be returned if it was not submitted in compliance with the relevant regulations and guidelines.

The registrar’s office cannot, under any circumstances, use judicial powers, the court made plain. It noted that such an exercise of power is unlawful since the Constitution does not allow for the delegation of judicial authority to an administrative officer.

The ruling also declared that it would be against the constitutional concept of separation of powers, which makes a clear distinction between the tasks of administrative offices and the judiciary, to give judicial authority to an administrative official.

Additionally, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that a constitutional petition cannot be deemed frivolous or without substance by the registrar’s office. It stated that the court had sole jurisdiction over such decisions.

The written ruling states that Razia Aslam’s constitutional petition was returned by the registrar’s office on February 14th, following an objection that it was not admissible. After that, the petitioner challenged the ruling in a chamber appeal.

While ruling on the chamber appeal, the court established the more general legal principle that the registrar’s office should only be subject to administrative review in accordance with the applicable procedural rules when it comes to issues pertaining to the admissibility or merits of constitutional petitions.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa legislative has enacted legislation that imposes financial penalties, jail time, and reporting limitations on journalists covering legislative activities.

The Speaker now has the power to prohibit any journalist from covering provincial assembly proceedings under the new law. Additionally, the Speaker has the authority to ban certain people for a predetermined amount of time.

The law also gives the Speaker the power to forbid any assembly proceedings from being published or televised. Anyone found to be in violation of these limits could be fined up to Rs. 1 million and imprisoned for up to six months.

The measure stipulates that media outlets or journalists who are found to have misreported or distorted assembly proceedings may be fined up to Rs 300,000 and imprisoned for up to three years.

Additionally, the law stipulates that accusations of prejudice against the Speaker or criticism of the Speaker’s actions might result in a fine of up to Rs1 million and up to six months in jail.

A three-month jail sentence and a fine of up to Rs 300,000 might also result from publishing or broadcasting a standing committee’s report before it is formally presented in the parliament.

In a similar vein, reporting on an adjournment motion prior to its formal submission could result in a fine of up to Rs. 100,000 and a month in jail.

The legislation was first authorized through a supplemental agenda in April, but the gazette notification wasn’t released for several months, according to the newspaper.