Friday, coalition parties urged that Supreme Court judges Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi withdraw themselves from a bench formed in the suo-motu case regarding the delay in the announcement for elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP).
A nine-member panel resumed hearing the case after the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F) submitted a petition seeking the Supreme Court (SC) to remove two judges from the bench.
As the proceedings began today, PPP counsel Farooq H Naek read a statement in the court and urged the SC to withdraw Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi from hearing the case.
The statement requested that two justices on the supreme court “refrain from hearing any case involving PML-N, PPP, and JUI-F and their leadership” to protect the “basic right to a fair trial and due process” and promote justice and fair play.
Read: CJP takes suo motu notice over delay in Punjab, KP elections
Naek requested that all parties be notified and said that he had not yet received a copy of the court order.
The representatives of all four provinces were present in the courtroom, according to the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), who added, “We will take attendance on Monday and hear arguments.”
The PPP attorney also opposed the addition of Justices Ahsan and Naqvi to the bench and cited Justice Jamal Mandokhail’s criticisms of the suo moto notice from a prior hearing.
But, Judge Athar Minallah claimed that the case was connected to Article 184(3) of the Constitution and questioned why it should not be heard in front of the entire court.
Read: SJC receives reference against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi in SJC
Attorney Naek said he did not wish to discuss specifics but urged a full court bench to hear the case.
CJP Umar Atta Bandial stated that we would discuss the admissibility of the matter first. The attorney for the PPP said that the evidence’s admissibility and the bench’s composition and composition are the most important questions.
At the hearing, the Awami Muslim League (AML) attorney, Azhar Siddique, raised concerns about the “severe issue” of allowing political leaders to insult the judiciary.
In his remarks, Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned why the issue of constitutional interpretation had not been handled in parliament and emphasized that political issues should be settled there.
The Constitution of Pakistan has arrived at our doorstep, according to Judge Bandial, who added that individuals would knock on the court’s door under normal circumstances.
The hearing was then adjourned until Monday, February 27.
){kind=link}