On the second day, the Supreme Court’s six-member constitutional bench, which is presided over by Justice Aminuddin Khan, proceeded to hear numerous cases.

The tribunal resolved four cases and issued notifications in two additional instances.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified during the hearing of a suo motu notice on an anti-terrorism case that the apex court still has the legal authority to take suo motu notice; however, the procedure had been altered. The sole distinction, he maintained, was that suo motu cases would be resolved by the constitutional tribunal following the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

The petitioner’s counsel, Munir Piracha, was advised by Justice Mazhar to bear in mind that the constitutional bench has the power to take suo motu notice.

Earlier in the hearing, Piracha informed the court that no further action was necessary in the case. She also stated that the Supreme Court is no longer able to take suo motu notices following the 26th amendment.

The matter was, subsequently, dismissed by the bench.

In addition, the bench postponed hearings concerning the service structure of female health workers after consolidating all comparable cases and sending notifications to the parties involved.

In a suo motu notice case concerning the private use of Islamabad’s Convention Centre, the bench dismissed the case after the additional attorney general informed it that the expenditures associated with the PTI’s event at the center had been reimbursed to the CDA shortly after the ceremony.

The Convention Centre should be operated in accordance with the institution’s policies, as stated by Justice Jamal Mandokhel.

The proceedings in another case concerning the concealment of foreign bank accounts and the recovery of allegedly misappropriated money from abroad were postponed by the bench for two weeks. In addition, it requested reports from the FIA and FBR regarding the recovery of looted money and covert foreign bank accounts.

The orders were issued to obtain reports from all agencies, including the FIA and FBR, as noted by Justice Mazhar.

The counsel for the FBR informed the bench that the matter was of concern to the bureau and FIA, and that the agencies were not involved.