On Monday, gold prices in Pakistan experienced a notable rise due to a favorable change in worldwide markets.

The price of gold per tola increased by Rs500, attaining Rs282,900.The increase followed a decrease in gold prices during the prior session, where the price had dropped by Rs200 to conclude at Rs282,400 on Saturday.

On Monday, the price of 10 grams of gold increased by Rs429, reaching Rs242,541.

The increase in local gold prices reflected the favorable trend in the worldwide market, where the price of gold per ounce reached $2,708, plus an additional premium of $20. This was a $5 rise inside a single day.

Conversely, silver prices declined, with the price per tola decreasing by Rs9 to reach Rs3,372.

Analysts ascribe the rise in gold prices to variations in global demand, as investors seek refuge in precious metals amid economic concerns. As global markets exhibit ongoing volatility, analysts anticipate additional swings in the values of gold and silver in the forthcoming weeks.

The federal government’s negotiation team has completed a comprehensive written reply to the demands put out by PTI.

The statement addresses all points presented by PTI, including the rejection to establish a judicial panel for the events of May 9.

The administration highlighted that judicial commissions are constituted for issues not subject to judicial review, and cases pertaining to May 9 are currently being adjudicated in courts, with certain persons having been condemned by military tribunals.

PTI has consented to engage in negotiations with the Prime Minister’s committee. An in-camera session has been arranged at Parliament House to further deliberate on the topic.

The letter response requests comprehensive lists of missing persons and arrested individuals from PTI, inquiring how measures for their release may be implemented without adequate information. Furthermore, PTI’s assertions concerning fatalities during protests necessitate corroborative data.

The government committee intends to deliver the written response to National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq in the imminent future. The Speaker will determine whether to convene the fourth round of discussions upon receipt of the response.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial for contempt of court for the scheduling of cases in violation of judicial orders.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the senior judge presiding over the three-member bench addressing the issue, expressed astonishment at his lack of awareness regarding a Judges Committee meeting, despite his membership in the committee.

The hearing, concentrating on the authority of constitutional benches and normal benches, occurred on Monday.

Barrister Salahuddin presented his concerns on the scheduling of his case before the bench, which included Justice Ayesha Malik. “I traveled from Karachi; however, the case was not slated for a hearing today,” he stated.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah summoned Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas to elucidate the circumstances. Due to bad health, the Additional Registrar’s absence was noted, prompting Deputy Registrar Zulfiqar Ali to advise the court that a Judges Committee meeting had resolved to schedule the case for hearing before the Constitutional Bench on January 27.

Justice Shah interrogates the transparency of the meeting.

Justice Shah conveyed his surprise, remarking, “As a member of the Judges Committee, I was not apprised of the meeting.” Justice Ayesha Malik expressed apprehensions regarding the reassignment of cases without prior notification.

“The cases scheduled for the entire week have been altered without our awareness,” she stated, requesting the specifics of the meeting minutes.

The court instructed the Deputy Registrar to furnish the minutes of the Judges Committee meeting and elucidate the modifications to the case schedule. Justice Shah stated, “We require transparency in the decision-making process regarding case allocations.”

Notice of contempt of court issued

Subsequent to the disclosures, the court issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial for contempt. The bench mandated his personal appearance on Tuesday to elucidate the circumstances.

The panel also inquired how a research officer might determine case assignments, circumventing judicial directives. “Is it appropriate for a research officer to determine the allocation of cases to specific benches?” Justice Malik stated. Justice Shah stated, “The Judges Committee lacks the authority to supersede judicial orders or to reallocate cases indiscriminately.”
The court noted that its prior directive, issued on January 16, explicitly mandated the case to be heard on January 20 at 1 pm by the same bench. Notwithstanding this, the case was transferred to the Constitutional Bench without the consultation of the sitting judges.

Justice Malik remarked that such issues should have been deliberated in court instead of being resolved unilaterally by the committee. She also interrogated the justification for consolidating decision-making authority in the hands of a sole Chief Justice. “I fail to comprehend how a single Chief Justice can surpass the collective wisdom of two or three individuals,” she stated.

The hearing was postponed until Tuesday at 9:30 am, with the court underscoring the necessity of complying with judicial directives. Justice Shah stated, “The committee’s actions subvert the judiciary’s authority,” noting that the sudden transfer of the case seemed to be an effort to marginalize the bench.