Article 63-A review plea: CJP rejects objection to bench
On an eventful Wednesday, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa dismissed PTI’s objection regarding the bench formation for hearing the review petition of the Article 63-A revision case.
Earlier in the proceedings, things took a heated turn when a confrontation broke out between PTI’s Syed Mustafin Kazmi and the chief justice. As PTI’s Barrister Ali Zafar approached the front, his colleague Kazmi raised a challenge against the inclusion of Justice Naeem Afghan and Justice Mazhar Alam on the reconstituted bench.
The chief justice, in a display of frustration, called for law enforcement to oust Advocate Kazmi from the courtroom.
Upon resumption of the hearing, Barrister Ali further objected to the formation of the CJP-led bench. After deliberation, the bench ‘unanimously’ dismissed his objection.
Barrister Ali explained that his review application had been submitted late, resulting in it not being scheduled for a hearing. Chief Justice Isa inquired as to when exactly the application had been filed, insinuating it should have been done earlier in the day.
Ali admitted to the late submission and mentioned that the Supreme Court’s office had not sanctioned the application. He sought additional time to prepare his arguments, stating he needed to consult PTI founder Imran Khan, who, as a former prime minister and petitioner, understood constitutional matters and could provide valuable input.
Despite Ali’s plea, the Chief Justice instructed him to proceed with his arguments. Ali responded by pointing out, ‘So, you are rejecting my request to meet Imran Khan.’ Justice Naeem Afghan then remarked that Ali could have met Khan the previous day, at which point Ali disclosed that Khan was currently imprisoned.
Chief Justice stated that if he had needed to consult the PTI founder, he would have done so yesterday, and the court would have issued an order then. Previously, the court had summoned the PTI founder via video link and arranged a meeting with the lawyers.
Barrister Ali once again questioned the legitimacy of the bench, asserting that a decision on its legality should come first. He said, ‘After that, I can provide my arguments.’
The court dismissed his objection regarding the formation of the bench.
Barrister Ali argued that Justice Munib was not a member of the bench on September 30. He claimed that the proceedings should not have taken place in the absence of Justice Munib.
He further clarified that he was not questioning the legality of the ordinance itself, but rather the bench’s formation according to the law. He highlighted that the law requires a three-member committee to constitute a bench, which should be formed by majority vote. There is no provision allowing just two committee members to form a bench.
Barrister Ali also mentioned that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah did not attend the committee meeting and had instead written a letter. He expressed his desire to read the letter, prompting the chief justice to allow him to read only the relevant paragraph.
The CJP warned that if Barrister Ali read that letter, he would also have to read the reply, querying if he intended to embarrass the judges.
Barrister Ali Zafar noted that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had mentioned the need for a full court to discuss the amendment ordinance. He also cited an instance when, as a senior judge, Justice Shah restricted himself to chamber work.
The chief justice responded, ‘Can we abolish a law by calling a full court meeting? In my view, what my colleague wrote was beyond the scope of the Constitution and the law. If I stop attending the meetings, will the Supreme Court shut down?’
He firmly told Mr. Ali Zafar, ‘You cannot choose the judges. Such behavior is detrimental.’