Four Supreme Court judges excused themselves from hearing the suo moto case concerning the delay in announcing election dates for Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
The justices Ahsan, Naqvi, Minallah, and Yahya Afridi disqualified themselves from hearing the case. On February 23, the highest court issued a formal decision asking for the reconstitution of the nine-member bench.
In addition, the written order incorporated the dissenting opinions of Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Yahya Afridi, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Minallah.
On Monday, four Supreme Court justices resigned from the hearing of the suo moto case regarding the delay in declaring the election dates for Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P).
The justices Yahya Afridi, Ahsan, Naqvi, and Minallah recused themselves from hearing the case. In an order dated February 23, the supreme court had previously recommended reconfiguring the nine-member bench.
The written order also featured dissenting opinions from Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Yahya Afridi, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Minallah.
The plea for the reconfigured bench was made to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial. Today, a five-person panel has resumed hearing the case.
When the Punjab and K-P provincial assemblies were dissolved earlier this year, the apex court took suo moto notice of the delay in announcing elections for both bodies.
Court appearances were made by party leaders Fawad Chaudhry, Shireen Mazari, and Dr. Waseem Shehzad, as well as lawyers for the PTI, Ali Zafar and Faisal Chaudhry, Mansoor Awan of the PML-N, Farhatullah Babar of the PPP, Kamran Murtaza of the JUI-F, and AML chief Sheikh Rashid.
Also present were Abid Zuberi, President of the Supreme Court Bar, and Shoaib Shaheen, President of the Islamabad High Court Bar.
To hear the case, a nine-judge panel consisting of the Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahib Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Minallah was assembled beforehand.
The major ruling political parties and the top bars made the initial demands for the recusal of Justices Ahsan and Naqvi from the bigger bench.
Before the hearings, Justice Bandial stated that the court “wants to operate in accordance with the Constitution.”
CJ Bandial added that the bench was keen to conclude the matter as quickly as possible but that the court would continue to hear the case to interpret the Constitution.
In addition, the chief justice was concerned that Justice Mandokhail’s dissenting opinion had been prematurely disseminated on social media, which he deemed highly “inappropriate.”
Justice Bandial noted, “The order cannot be disseminated until it is published on the [official] website,” adding, “In the future, precautions will be made to prevent a similar scenario.”
The court then instructed the PTI lawyer to pacify the bench so the Supreme Court could hear the issue.
PPP advocate Advocate Farooq Naek reminded the court that a plea for establishing a full bench, in this case, is pending.
The CJ then assured him that he would also get the request.
In addition to the fate of the provincial assemblies, it should be recognized that the prestige of the highest court is also at issue.
As Justices Ahsan and Naqvi withdrew from the case, the Chief Justice of Pakistan excluded Justices Afridi and Minallah from the newly constituted panel.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Afridi noted that he had previously “determined that exercising powers under Article 18(3) of the Constitution would not be appropriate” and that remaining on the bench would therefore be “ineffective.” This resulted in the exclusion of the two from the proceedings.
Yet, he had given CJ Bandial the final say regarding his bench position.
Judge Minallah, who agreed with Justice Afridi’s conclusion, stated in a separate note that the “conveyed extraordinary original jurisdiction must be entertained and heard by the entire court, as is inherent in the language of Article 184(3).”
In addition, he questioned the chief minister’s authority to dissolve an assembly and whether the provincial legislature could be reconvened if the chief minister’s counsel was deemed unconstitutional.
During the prior proceedings, Judge Mandokhail, a member of the bigger bench, expressed his reservations about the use of suo motu jurisdiction in the case.
Judge Minallah questioned whether Article 184-3 of the Constitution required a full court hearing.
It was observed for the first time that a judge questioned the behavior of other members while seated on the same bench.
With each passing day, the disparity between Supreme Court judges widens.
Some members of the larger bench continued to dispute following Thursday’s session.
Since their dissolution earlier this year, the highest court has taken suo moto note of the delay in announcing elections for the provincial assembly of Punjab and K-P.
PTI attorneys Ali Zafar and Faisal Chaudhry appeared in court alongside party leaders Fawad Chaudhry, Shireen Mazari, and Dr. Waseem Shehzad, as well as Mansoor Awan of PML-N, Farhatullah Babar of PPP, Kamran Murtaza of JUI-F, and AML chief Sheikh Rashid.
Also present were Pakistan Bar Vice President Haroon Rasheed, Supreme Court Bar President Abid Zuberi, and Islamabad High Court Bar President Shoeib Shaheen.
Previously, a nine-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandikhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Minallah was formed to hear the case.
Justices Ahsan and Naqvi, two members of the bigger bench, had their recusal requested by key ruling political parties and superior bar associations.
As the proceedings began, Justice Bandial stated that the court “wants to operate in accordance with the Constitution.”
“The court will continue to hear the case to interpret the Constitution,” said Chief Justice Bandial, adding that the bench was eager to conclude hearings as soon as possible.
The chief judge was especially concerned that Justice Mandokhail’s dissenting opinion was prematurely broadcast on social media, which he judged highly “inappropriate.”
“Until the order is published on the [official] website, it cannot be communicated,” said Judge Bandial, adding that “in the future, steps will be taken to ensure that this does not happen again.”
The court then instructed the PTI attorney to convince the bench so the Supreme Court could hear the case.
In the meantime, PPP attorney Advocate Farooq Naek reminded the court that a plea for a full bench was still pending.
The Chief Justice then promised him that his request would also be heard.
In addition to the future of the provincial assembly, the reputation of the highest court is also in jeopardy.
When Justices Ahsan and Naqvi recused themselves from hearing the case, the CJP did not include Justices Afridi and Minallah in the freshly constituted bench.
The decision to exclude the two occurred after Judge Afridi stated in his dissenting note that he had “determined that exercising powers under Article 18(3) of the Constitution would not be appropriate” and that it would thus be “useless” for him to remain on the bench.
Nonetheless, he left the decision as to whether he would serve on the bench to CJ Bandial.
In a separate note, Judge Minallah agreed with Justice Afridi and stated, “it is implicit in terms of Article 184(3) that the conferred extraordinary original jurisdiction must be entertained and heard by the entire court.”
He also questioned the chief minister’s authority to dissolve an assembly and pondered if the provincial legislature might be reinstated if the chief minister’s suggestion is deemed unconstitutional.
During the preceding proceedings, one of the bigger benches, Justice Mandokhail, voiced doubts about exercising suo moto jurisdiction in the case.
Judge Minallah questioned whether or not Article 184-3 of the Constitution required a full court to consider the case.
It was the first time a judge sitting on the same bench questioned the behavior of other judges.
The rift between Supreme Court judges widens with each passing day.
Even after Thursday’s session, some members of the bigger bench exchanged heated comments.
.){kind=link}