๐ต๐ฐ ํํค์คํ ยท "ULTIMATUM" ยท ์ด 3๊ฑด
ํํฐ ๋ณด๊ธฐํ์ฌ ์ง์
50.0
0 = ๋ถ์ ์ฐ์ธ
50 = ์ค๋ฆฝ
100 = ๊ธ์ ์ฐ์ธ
์ต๊ทผ 7์ผ ๊ธฐ์ค 922๊ฑด์ ๋ถ์ํ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ๋ด์ค ์ฌ๋ฆฌ์ง์๋ 50.0(๊ท ํ)์ ๋๋ค. ๊ธ์ 1๊ฑด(0.1%)ยท์ค๋ฆฝ 920๊ฑด(99.8%)ยท๋ถ์ 1๊ฑด(0.1%)์ด๋ฉฐ, ์ค๋ฆฝ ๋น์ค์ด ๋๋ ทํ๊ฒ ๋์ต๋๋ค. ์ฑํฅ ์ง์๋ ์ข ํฉ 0.0(์ค๋ ๊ท ํ)์ ๋๋ค.
While the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may not be running low cash โ at least for now, Meghan is urging Harry to take action before their lavish lifestyle crumbles.
โข Legal fraternity says โfacilitative measureโ has turned into โgatekeeping mechanismโ โข Notes technical glitches make access to justice needlessly complicated LAHORE: The enforcement of mandatory biometric verification for litigants filing cases has triggered widespread concern across Punjabโs legal community, with lawyers describing the requirement as an unreasonable obstacle to access to justice. Notified in January and in force since March of this year, the move was envisioned as a facilitative, technical measure. According to a statement attributed to LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum, the system would โhelp curb fake litigation, prevent impersonation and eliminate the use of bogus witnesses and suretiesโ. It was described as a significant step towยญaยญrds modernising the judiciary and safeguarding the integrity of judicial proceedings, which would enhance the credibility of the judiciary and provide a secure and efficient mechanism for conducting proceedings. But after a few months of seeing it in action, lawyers argue that the measure has effectively become a gatekeeping mechanism, disproportionately affecting poor and vulnerable litigantsโ ability to access justice. Some see the initiative as evolving into a revenue-generation exercise rather than meaningful judicial reform, as the process has imposed an additional financial burden through a โpay-to-accessโ model, where the officially prescribed fee of Rs200 often rises to Rs300 in practice. According to members of the legal fraternity Dawn spoke to, serious infrastructure deficiencies and recurring technical glitches are disrupting the timely filing of urgent matters. The Lahore Bar Association (LBA) has already issued an ultimatum to the Lahore High Court (LHC), urging it to rationalise the biometric verification requirement. Representatives of the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and the LBA complain that the LHC introduced the new regime without consulting them. They told Dawn that the decision was made after consultations only with the Pakistan Bar Council and the Punjab Bar Council, the countryโs and provinceโs regulatory bar bodies, respectively. LHCBA President Babar Murtaza said the biometric system had already been implemented when his cabinet assumed office in March this year. However, he said the bar leadership later met the LHC administration committee and conveyed the legal fraternityโs concerns regarding the system. According to him, the bar was informed that the system had been introduced pursuant to a decision of the National Judicial (Policy-making) Committee (NJPMC). Mr Murtaza maintained that justice should be swift and inexpensive. He pointed out that the validity period of biometric verification was initially restricted to 24 hours but was later extended to 72 hours following the barโs intervention. He demanded that the validity period be extended to at least one week. He said the bar supported biometric verification for filing main petitions but opposed its requirement for subsequent civil miscellaneous applications. Criminal cases, witness verification Both Mr Murtaza and LBA President Irfan Hayat Bajwa termed biometric verification โunnecessaryโ in criminal matters, including pre-arrest and post-arrest bail petitions. They argued that once biometric verification was conducted in pre-arrest bail cases, a suspect could already be easily traced by law enforcement agencies, rendering the purpose of seeking protective bail redundant. In post-arrest bail cases, they added, the accused was already in judicial custody and should not be subjected to additional verification requirements. The lawyers also criticised the requirement for witnesses to undergo biometric verification before recording statements. They questioned who would refund the fee if testimony could not be recorded on the scheduled date because of adjournments or other reasons. A litigant told Dawn that he failed to file a stay application in time because of a technical fault in Nadraโs biometric system. He said access to justice had become unnecessarily complicated due to avoidable technicalities. Revenue at litigantsโ cost The fee collected through the biometric verification process also includes a share for the relevant tehsil or district bar association. However, Mr Bajwa said lawyers did not want revenue at the expense of poor litigants. โWe are against any such revenue-generation model,โ he said. He added that the LBA was still awaiting a response from the LHC regarding recommendations submitted nearly two weeks ago. Former High Court Bar Association-Mulยญtan president Syed Riazul Hassan Gilani has also lodged a formal complaint with Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi against the biometric system implemented in Punjab. He alleged that of the mandatory Rs200 fee, Rs20 earmarked as โfinancial assistanceโ for employees of the high court and district judiciary amounted to โlegalised extortionโ. Mr Gilani argued that compelling litigaยญnts to pay judicial staff in addition to their government salaries risked normalising moยญยญnetary demands under the guise of welfare. He pointed out that the Islamabad High Court charges only Rs30 for biometric verification and e-affidavits through Nadra, withยญยญout imposing any additional welfare levy. The senior lawyer also questioned the jurisdiction of the NJPMC and provincial chief justices to impose mandatory fees or levies on litigants. He maintained that making access to justice contingent upon a โpay-to-accessโ model violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and disproportionately burdened vulnerable, illiterate and marginalised segments of society. Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2026
THE fragile ceasefire between Iran and the US may have slowed the fighting, but the conflict driving it remains unresolved. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqviโs meetings in Tehran over the weekend show the urgency of the crisis and the narrowing space for diplomacy. Even as President Donald Trump warned that โthe clock is tickingโ for Iran, reports suggest diplomacy may already have helped avert another escalation after Tehran submitted a revised proposal through Islamabad. That underlines how consequential Pakistanโs role has become. Islamabad is increasingly acting as a conduit through which proposals move between Tehran and Washington. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharifโs contacts with Qatar and Egypt further demonstrate Pakistanโs attempt to position itself at the centre of regional diplomacy when few reliable communication channels remain open. The negotiations themselves, however, remain deeply troubled. Iranian media reports suggest Washingtonโs latest proposal still demands sweeping nuclear concessions while offering little relief in return. Tehran is reportedly being asked to scale back much of its nuclear infrastructure, transfer enriched uranium abroad and begin talks before broader hostilities end. Iran, meanwhile, continues demanding sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, reparations for wartime damage and guarantees against future attacks. Yet beneath the public posturing, there are faint signs both sides may be probing for compromise. Reports indicate Iran may be willing to suspend parts of its nuclear programme, transfer some enriched uranium abroad and gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are eased and security guarantees materialise. Publicly, however, neither Washington nor Tehran wishes to appear politically weakened by flexibility. The Strait of Hormuz has become the real centre of the confrontation. Earlier phases of the crisis revolved around nuclear restrictions. Today, the dispute concerns who shapes the Gulfโs security order and controls one of the worldโs most vital energy corridors. Iran continues to use Hormuz as leverage while the US and Gulf states insist unrestricted navigation is non-negotiable. This leaves the region hanging between diplomacy and renewed conflict. Gulf governments fear the economic consequences of another escalation, while Iran appears convinced that surviving months of military and economic pressure has strengthened its negotiating position. Washington, meanwhile, still seems to believe sustained pressure can force Tehran into larger concessions. For Pakistan, mediation offers diplomatic relevance but also growing risk. The longer the crisis drags on, the harder it will become for Islamabad to balance relations with Tehran, Washington and the Gulf states. For now, the ceasefire survives because all sides understand the cost of its collapse. But unless negotiations soon give way to progress rather than competing ultimatums, the Middle East may be heading not towards peace, but a prolonged era of recurring crises. Published in Dawn, May 20th, 2026