63A Interpretation Case: CJP rejects PTI’s objection to bench formation

Islamabad: During the hearing of the Article 63A interpretation review case, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa rejected the objection of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Ali Zafar regarding the formation of the bench. In his remarks, he said that we all have a joint decision and reject the objection.

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa comprising Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Mazhar Alam are hearing the case.

Submission of Registrar's Report

At the commencement of the hearing, the Registrar's report regarding the 63A detailed judgment was presented, according to which the detailed judgment of the case was issued on October 14, 2022.

During the hearing, President Supreme Court Bar Shahzad Shaukat came to the rostrum, to whom the Chief Justice inquired if his arguments had been completed. On which Shahzad Shaukat told the court that there was a delay in filing the revision while waiting for the detailed decision. The short verdict had come but the detailed verdict was awaited.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel remarked that if it was a case of a common man, it would have been a different matter, did the Supreme Court Bar not even know how long it takes to file the revision?

Shahzad Shaukat said that the delay of review in public interest cases can be ignored and public interest cases can also be scheduled early, the review was not scheduled for hearing for two years.

PTI's lawyer Ali Zafar said that he wanted to give a statement first. On which the Chief Justice said that they do not listen to statements in the court, and the statement should be sent to the Parliament building next door.

Ali Zafar stated that the revision application was filed late, therefore, it was not fixed. The Chief Justice inquired whether the revision was against the decision or its reasons.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked him to tell us about the application as he must have filed it in the morning. Ali Zafar replied that he filed the application but the office of the Supreme Court did not approve it. He needed time to present the arguments and also has to consult PTI founder Imran Khan regarding the case.

Ali Zafar told the CJP that he said it is a constitutional matter, Imran Khan is a former prime minister and is also a petitioner, he understands the constitution and knows what to say. Allow me to consult him on the matter.

The Chief Justice said that you should start your arguments, Ali Zafar said that means you are rejecting my request to meet Imran Khan.

Justice Naeem Afghan sstatedaid that you could have met yesterday, to which Ali Zafar answered that Imran Khan is in jail.

The Chief Justice added that if he had to consult, he would have told yesterday, and the court would have issued an order. In the past, Imran Khan was called via video link, and lawyers’ meeting was also arranged.

Ali Zafar spoke to the Chief Justice, ‘I was sure that you would not approve the request to meet Imran Khan, you should reject it’.

During the hearing, PTI lawyer Mustafin Kazmi came to the rostrum, the Chief Justice asked him of his party, to which he replied that he was representing PTI.

The Chief Justice instructed him to sit down, if he will not sit, then they would call the police. To which Mustafin said that this is what you can do, 500 of our lawyers are standing outside, let's see how will you decide against us.

On this occasion, Mustafin Kazmi Advocate objected to the two judges participating in the bench, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel, saying that this five-member larger bench is unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice directed the plainclothes policemen in the court to take the gentleman out.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez asked Barrister Ali Zafar what was happening. You come and insult us, we will not tolerate it at all. To which Ali Zafar replied that he was debating very comfortably and you were also listening comfortably.

CJP Qazi added that this mischievous behavior with judges has become common now, YouTubers will go out of the courtroom and start now.

Lawyer Ali Zafar said that it was necessary to issue a notice to the parties in this case, on which the Chief Justice said that we had said yesterday that whoever wanted to come and give arguments.

Ali Zafar once again objected to the bench and said that this procedure was not correct. The bench was not legal, not even according to the Bench Amendment Ordinance, to which the Chief Justice said that now you are threatening us.

Barrister Ali Zafar stated: “I am not responsible for what happened in the court”. The Chief Justice said that you are responsible for it, if you don't want to prosecute the case then don't. To which Ali Zafar replied that he was with him in the matter, don’t make him the enemy.

Lawyer Ali Zafar further said that this court had given a decision in the practice and procedure case. The Chief Justice said that his party had opposed the act. On which Ali said that what anyone said in the arguments is not important, your decision is important.

The Chief Justice remarked that if your party makes such a law in the future, can I say that I don't like it, it is not a matter of the judges' like or dislike, the law was suspended. Despite becoming the Chief Justice, I consulted with two senior judges. The Amending Ordinance was not challenged before us, we are currently hearing the revision petition.

Ali Zafar said that I am not talking about the legality of the ordinance, I am saying that the bench was not formed according to this law which says that a three-member committee will form the bench. According to the law, the bench should be formed by a majority vote. There is no scope in the law for two members of the committee to form a bench.

Imran Khan's lawyer Ali Zafar said that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah did not come to the committee and wrote the letter which I would like to read. Chief Justice asked to read only the relevant paragraph. If you read that letter, you should also read the reply, you want to embarrass the judges here.

Ali Zafar said that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah addressed the full court on the amendment ordinance.

PTI lawyer Ali added that Justice Mansoor also referred to you when you were a senior judge, you also went to chamber work for a period. On which the Chief Justice said that there was transparency in his actions.

The Chief Justice remarked that he thought the law should not be suspended at the level of the bill. Can we call a full court meeting to repeal a law? In my opinion, what my colleague wrote was not within the scope of the Constitution and the law. If I stop sitting in the meeting tomorrow, will the Supreme Court be closed?

Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that yesterday his cousin told him that the Supreme Court has been destroyed. He asked the reason, to which he replied that it was ruined due to practice and procedure. Mandukhel asked if he had read the Practice and Procedure. He said no, we can't teach law to people, we can only make decisions according to conscience.

Ali Zafar added that Justice Munib was not part of the bench on September 30, the bench should not have sat in his absence.

Qazi addressing the lawyer said that he cannot choose the judges himself, such behavior is disastrous. In the past, did the bench was formed based on seniority, why did you never try to be transparent on behalf of the bar?

Barrister Ali Zafar said that first it should be decided that the bench is legal, only then he could give arguments.

The court rejected Ali Zafar's objection regarding the formation of the bench, saying that he said to pronounce the decision, so we did so. It was a common decision; therefore, the objection was rejected.

Ali Zafar said that the members of the bench formation committee are part of the bench, how can they declare the formation of the bench as legal?

The Chief Justice said that if this happens, the members of the Judges Committee cannot be a part of any bench. If you tell us things, then listen too. We are among the makers of Pakistan, not breakers. We also heard the cases that no one wanted to hear including the case of Pervez Musharraf.