Justice Isa snubs larger bench order on suo motu cases

ISLAMABAD: On Saturday, a six-member bench that overruled his order regarding a freeze on suo motu proceedings did not “constitute a constitutional court nor possessed with any jurisdiction,” according to a judicial note written by senior puisne judge Qazi Faez Isa.

The six-judge bench upheld the registrar’s March 31 circular to ignore Justice Isa’s directive to halt cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on April 4. Following a circular issued by the SC registrar, the larger bench’s order verified its contents. Considering the round gave by the enlistment center on Walk 31, Equity Isa had requested that the Bureau Division review his administrations. The registrar’s services were subsequently recalled.

In addition to the six-judge bench, a three-member bench headed by the chief justice observed that Justice Isa’s instructions had no effect on the hearing of a case about the polls delay under Article 184(3). In a nine-page legal note, which was at first transferred yet later eliminated from the court’s true site, Equity Isa saw that since the social event in a court of six recognized judges was not reasonable under the Constitution or under any regulation, the High Court’s request for Walk 29 — Equity Isa’s structure — could never have been saved by the enlistment center’s note.

Justice Isa made the observation that “decisions emanating from a courtroom overcast with the shadow of autocracy cannot displace the Constitution,” as well as pointing out procedural irregularities in the bench’s formation. It stated that a roster was issued for the same day—a practice that is only followed in cases of extraordinary emergency, which did not exist in this instance.

The case roster was also issued the same day, and the matter was also listed that too after court time; Second-senior SC judge declares six-member bench verdict overruling his order “without constitutional validity.” In addition, as required by Order XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, neither the matter’s listing nor the attorney general of Pakistan were given prior notice.

According to the order of the six-member bench, the AGP was given notice by the court and the PMDC’s attorney was also present without prior notice. According to the judge, this meant that the PMDC’s attorney was sent for verbally or by phone, which is not typical.

“Constitutional deviations” Justice Isa said that the federal court’s decision made it possible for future dictators to overthrow civilian governments. Justice Isa regretted that the CJP and Supreme Court justices frequently assisted dictators, resulting in the disintegration of the nation with the largest Muslim population as a result of constitutional deviations.

According to Justice Isa’s note, the six-judge order names the CJP as the “Master of Rolls,” a title that isn’t in the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court Rules of 1980. The SC judge added that Justice Munib Akhtar’s previous note, which stated that it “clearly and categorically lays down the rule that suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can only and solely be invoked by the CJP,” was the source of the April 4 order.

Equity Isa saw that the greater part request likewise has all the earmarks of being infringing upon the very much settled law and order which is proverbial that the CJP was the expert of the program.

Respectfully, Justice Munib Akhtar’s previous note did not establish a legal precedent. Regardless, the said thinking is without an established or legitimate establishment,” he noticed, adding that the expressed law and order was not instituted as per regulation nor could it by its at any point own be sorted as law and order, especially when it contradicts the Constitution, which doesn’t give the CJP such powers.

Justice Isa stated that the April 4 reasoning is flawed as well. Ironically, the April 4 note had no constitutional or legal validity to hold that the March 29 order (Justice Isa order) was without and beyond jurisdiction in a matter in which the so-called larger bench had wrongly assumed jurisdiction.
Published in tdtv.cam, April 9th, 2023

Leave a Comment