Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party’s objection regarding the formation of the bench during the hearing of the Article 63A interpretation review case. CJP Isa emphasized that the court has a unified decision and thus rejected the objection.
A five-member Supreme Court bench, led by CJP Isa and including Justices Aminuddin, Jamal Khan Mandukhel, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Mazhar Alam, is currently overseeing the case.
Registrar’s Report
The Registrar submitted the report on the detailed judgment of 63A, revealing that the judgment was issued on October 14, 2022
Supreme Court Bar President Shahzad Shaukat approached the rostrum, to which CJP Isa inquired if he had finished his arguments. Shaukat explained that the delay in filing the revision occurred because they were waiting for the detailed decision, as the court had only released the short verdict.
Justice Mandukhel commented that if this were a case involving an ordinary citizen, the situation would differ. He questioned whether the Supreme Court Bar did not understand the timeframe for filing a revision.
Delay in Public Interest Cases
Shaukat argued that the court should overlook delays in public interest cases and schedule them for an earlier hearing, noting that the review had remained unheard for two years.
PTI lawyer Ali Zafar requested to make an opening statement. CJP Isa replied that statements are not taken in court, suggesting he submit it to the Parliament building next door.
Zafar contended that the revision application was filed late, leading to its current status. CJP Isa inquired if the revision was against the decision itself or the rationale behind it. Zafar explained that he had filed the application but it had not received approval from the Supreme Court’s office, necessitating time to present his arguments and consult PTI founder Imran Khan regarding the case.
Zafar pointed out that Imran Khan, being a former prime minister and petitioner, is knowledgeable about constitutional matters and should be consulted. CJP Isa encouraged him to begin his arguments. Zafar expressed that this implied his request to meet Imran Khan had been denied.
Tensions Rise in Court
Justice Afghan remarked that Zafar could have consulted Khan the previous day. Zafar responded that Khan is currently in jail. CJP Isa suggested that if Zafar had needed to consult with Khan, he could have mentioned it earlier.
As the hearing progressed, PTI lawyer Mustafin Kazmi addressed the court, claiming representation for PTI. CJP Isa instructed him to sit down, warning that police would be called if he refused. Kazmi responded defiantly, indicating that many of their lawyers were outside and challenging the court’s decisions.
Kazmi then objected to the participation of Justices Afghan and Mazhar Alam Mian Khel, claiming that the five-member bench was unconstitutional. CJP Isa ordered plainclothes police officers to escort him out of the courtroom.
CJP Isa questioned Ali Zafar about the disruptions in court, asserting that such disrespect towards judges would not be tolerated. Zafar maintained that he was calmly debating and that the Chief Justice was listening just as comfortably.
CJP Isa remarked that disruptive behavior towards judges has become commonplace and noted that individuals outside the courtroom are likely to comment on the proceedings.
Zafar argued that a notice should have been issued to the parties involved in the case, to which CJP Isa reiterated that anyone wishing to present arguments was welcome.
He once more objected to the bench’s legality, stating it was not formed correctly under the Bench Amendment Ordinance. CJP Isa countered that Zafar’s comments resembled threats.
Discussion on Legal Matters
Zafar insisted he was not responsible for the courtroom’s disruptions. CJP Isa clarified that Zafar is indeed responsible and urged him not to avoid the case.
Zafar affirmed he was on board with the matter and asked not to be positioned as an adversary.
During the hearing, Zafar mentioned a prior Supreme Court decision regarding the practice and procedure. CJP Isa responded that the PTI party had previously opposed this decision.
Zafar reiterated that what is said during arguments holds less weight than the court’s decision.
CJP Isa noted that if PTI legislates in the future, he cannot simply reject it based on personal feelings; the law had to be upheld. He added that even as Chief Justice, he consulted with senior judges, stressing that the Amending Ordinance had not been contested before them, as they are now deliberating on the revision petition.
Zafar clarified that he was not questioning the legality of the ordinance but rather that the bench’s formation did not comply with the law, which stipulates that a three-member committee should form the bench.
He contended that there was no provision in the law allowing for two committee members to form a bench.
Zafar referenced a letter from Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who did not attend the committee meeting, but CJP Isa insisted on limiting Zafar to relevant excerpts.
He urged Zafar to also read the response to the letter, implying that Zafar intended to embarrass the judges.
Final Remarks
The Chief Justice expressed the belief that laws should not be suspended at the bill level and questioned whether a full court meeting could be called to repeal a law. He emphasized that if he were to withdraw from meetings, it would not incapacitate the Supreme Court.
Justice Mandukhel shared a personal anecdote, stating that a relative remarked that the Supreme Court’s integrity was compromised due to procedural issues.
Mandukhel queried whether his relative had read the Practice and Procedure, highlighting that legal principles should not be taught but rather acted upon through conscience.
Zafar mentioned that Justice Munib was absent from the bench on September 30, arguing that the bench should not have convened without his presence.
CJP Isa responded that lawyers cannot select judges based on personal preferences, stating that such conduct is detrimental to the system.
CJP Isa concluded the session by reaffirming the legality of the bench’s formation, indicating that the court had made a collective decision to proceed.
The court ultimately rejected Zafar’s objections regarding the bench formation, underscoring that their judgment was consistent with established legal protocols.
