Supreme Court Senior Puisne Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa
has raised serious questions over the verdict of
a top court’s
six- member larger bench.
which recalled his and
Justice Amin Uddin Khan's ruling that
all sounds under Composition 184- 3 be laid over until the optional powers of the principal justice of Pakistan in the SC Rules to form benches,
fix' cases and initiate sue moto proceedings were amended.
On March 29, a special SC bench led by
Justice Isa, with a two- to- one maturity, ordered suspended all
sue moto cases under Composition 184( 3)
of the Constitution — until emendations were made to the SC Rules governing the principal justice’s optional powers.
The special bench order came on the suo motu case related to examining the award of fresh 20 marks to
Hafiz-e-Quran campaigners applying for registration to an MBBS/ BDS degree.
latterly on April 4, a larger bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayed Mazhar
Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik and
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, wrapped up
the case of the Hafiz-e-Quran campaigners in just five twinkles as well as recalled the interim order penned by Justice Isa.
The larger bench in its verdict ruled that Justice Isa and Justice Amin Uddin order was easily violate ” of a five- member bench’s August
2021 order that only the principal justice could take sue
moto notice.
Also read Justice
Isa’s sue moto order recalled
In a nine- runner note issued on Saturday, Justice Isa maintained that as the gathering in
a court of six distinguished judges wasn't admissible under the Constitution or under
any law, “
The Supreme Court’s order dated 29 March 2023 passed in
Case No 4 couldn't have been set aside by
the 4 April Note.
Opinions expiring from
a courtroom heavy with the shadow of authoritarianism cannot displace the Constitution, it added.
Justice Isa while pointing out the “procedural irregularities” committed by the six- member larger bench wrote that
the canon was issued for the same day, which was only done when
there was an extraordinary exigency, but in the instant matter there was none.
The very day the
case canon was issued the matter was also listed,
and after court- time;
No previous notice of
the table of the matter was issued; Notice wasn't issued to
the Attorney- General FFO Pakistan as per Order XXVIIA
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ” the note read.
The counsel for the Pakistan Medical and
Dental Council (PMDC) was in attendance without previous notice),
which meant he was verbally
or telephonically transferred for, contrary to usual practice,
It added Justice Isa observed that
the Constitution didn't bestow unlimited governance on the SC, let alone on the CJP.
The Constitution confers only the following authorities on
the Supreme Court
Original governance,
Appellate governance,
Premonitory governance,
Power to transfer cases governance,
Review governance,
Disdain governance and
Appellate governance with regard to opinions of executive courts and bars, he refocused out.
Also read SC
disregards 2- judge verdict postponing suo motu cases
Justice Isa noted that the
Constitution didn't confer governance on a bench or
on judges of the SC( no matter how numerous in number) to sit in
an appeal over an order of the top court.
Thus, the so- called larger bench was incorrectly constituted purportedly to hear Case No. 4. The larger bench didn't constitute a (indigenous) court; it didn't retain any of the below- mentioned authorities and
couldn't pass an order. The purported order dated 4
April 2023 cannot be categorized as
an order of the Supreme Court; it's of
no indigenous or legal effect. It would be fairly incorrect to relate to
it as an order; thus,
it shall be appertained to
as ‘the 4 April Note ’the judge added.
Pertaining to the logic applied to in the Note No.
4 issued by the larger bench, Justice
Isa noted that it designated the CJP as the “Master of Rolls”, a term not set up in
the Constitution, in any law or indeed in the SC Rules.
On the rationale that the principal justice is
the Master of Rolls and empowered to do as he pleases, the 4 April Note proceeds to calculate on an earlier note
( penned by Justice) (Munib Akhtar), stating that it ‘easily and categorically lays down the rule that the sue moto governance of
this court can only and solely be invoked
by the CJP, it added.
Justice Isa refocused out that the maturity order also appeared to be in violation of
the well- settled rule of law,
which was self-evident,
that principal justice was the master of
the canon”.
“ With respect,
the Hon’ble Justice Munib Akhtar’s before note wasn't a legal precedent. In any event,
the said logic is
without indigenous or legal foundation.
The pronounced rule of law wasn't legislated pursuant to a law nor
can it by its own tone- serve itself to be categorized
as rule of law, particularly when it contravenes the Constitution,
which doesn't grant to the principal justice similar powers, ”
Justice Isa maintained.
The order dated 29
March 2023 had noted the lack of procedural rules with regard to cases filed or taken notice of under Composition 184(3)
of the Constitution. still, in Case No. 4,(
the) notice under Composition 184( 3) of the Constitution had formerly been taken( with regard to the matter of entitlement of fresh marks), ironically, in a matter in
which the so- called larger bench had incorrectly assumed governance, ” the note read.
The 4 April Note stated that order dated 29 March 2023 ‘was thus both without and beyond governance ’. The 4 April Note has no indigenous or legal validity as it
seeks to dis plant the Constitution,
” the elderly judge argued.
0 Comments