The Supreme Court has rejected the registrar’s objections to the G-B CM plea.
 Supreme Court of Pakistan overrode the registrar’s office’s objections to a petition challenging the appointment of a judge and the extension given to three judges of the Gilgit-chief Baltistan’s court by the Pakistani government. The court said that the petition raised important questions about the governance of the region, which the government had previously ignored.
Earlier, G-B Chief Minister Khalid Khursheed Khan had veteran lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan file a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, naming the federal government, the G-B governor, and the recently appointed Judge Chief Court Javed Ahmed as respondents.
 Supreme Court of Pakistan overrode the registrar’s office’s objections to a petition challenging the appointment of a judge and the extension given to three judges of the Gilgit-chief Baltistan’s court by the Pakistani government. The court said that the petition raised important questions about the governance of the region, which the government had previously ignored.
Earlier, G-B Chief Minister Khalid Khursheed Khan had veteran lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan file a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, naming the federal government, the G-B governor, and the recently appointed Judge Chief Court Javed Ahmed as respondents.
The judge stated that the Civil Aviation Authority case had already dealt with the issue of governance in G-B and related matters, such as the availability of fundamental rights to the people.
“There is no denying that the right to justice and the judicial system’s independence are fundamental rights, the protection of which can be sought in appropriate cases through petitions filed either with the High Court or the Supreme Court.
According to the Supreme Court’s order, “Matters relating to or arising out of the Order in relation to GB, especially questions relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights, are prima facie not within the remit of any High Court and this Court is, therefore, the appropriate forum for pursuing the same.” “In other words, it contributed.
Given that “fundamental questions relating to the governance of GB may also need to be addressed,” as one of the petitions states, “this only strengthens my conclusion that prima facie the office objections are without merit.”
A ruling was made that dismissed the office’s protests.
In accordance with the Court’s established method and practice, “the constitutional petitions are to be recorded, numbered, and set in court. Respondents have the right to challenge the legality of the petitions and any other claims made in them if and when they are served with process (or if they want to voluntarily appear before the Court).
