ISLAMABAD: The hearing on the review appeals on Article 63A against the decision not to count the votes of the dissident members of parliament was held, but it was adjourned due to the non-attendance of Justice Muneeb. If they do not join, a new bench should be constituted.
According to ARYNOW.ONLINE a larger bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa heard the review appeal related to Article 63A. The bench includes Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, but Justice Muneeb did not participate and the chair to the right of the Chief Justice remained vacant.
The Chief Justice said that a five-member bench was formed, a five-member bench headed by former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial heard the case, a three-member majority decision of Article 63A was given, the bench was formed on the basis of transparency. Justice Muneeb Akhtar has written a letter to the registrar saying, “I cannot join this case today.” He has written that his letter should be made part of the record in this revision case.
He said that we are getting up now, we will request Justice Muneeb Akhtar to join the bench, Justice Muneeb Akhtar has heard the cases today, he was also present in the tea room, he was not included in today’s hearing. It was his wish to be. We will hear this review case again tomorrow. Hope Justice Muneeb Akhtar joins the hearing tomorrow.
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa said that the law requires that the hearing on the revision appeal should be done by the same bench. We will try, otherwise the bench will be reconstituted, Article 63A revision is pending for two years, we respect the opinion of Justice NAB Akhtar, we cannot keep the Supreme Court inactive.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan spoke to the Additional Attorney General that you want to say something? On this he said that we appreciate the wisdom of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
The Chief Justice read the text of the letter in which Justice Muneeb wrote that the Practice Procedure Committee has constituted a bench, he cannot be a part of the bench constituted by the committee, he is not refusing to sit on the bench, there is no wrong meaning of not joining the bench. May my letter be taken as part of revision case record.
The Chief Justice said that the tradition of making such a letter a part of the court record is not appropriate. Justice Muneeb Akhtar would come to the bench and give his opinion. I have always encouraged dissent. The case of 63 A is very important. The judge’s refusal to hear the case happens in the court. Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s opinion is respected. Will try Justice Munib join the bench A judge cannot decide alone or the court.
During the hearing, the lawyer of PTI founder Ali Zafar appeared in the court. Ali Zafar said that even under the Presidential Ordinance, the Judges Committee did not make a bench, a member judge did not join the Judges Committee, let the full court decide the matter of the Judges Committee.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel said that issuance of Presidential Ordinance is a constitutional right.
It should be noted that in the previous government of PTI, a presidential reference was sent for the interpretation of Article 63A. In the three-judge majority decision of the Supreme Court, the vote of dissenting members will not be counted. The opinion of the majority decision was written by Justice Muneeb Akhtar. while Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel and Justice Mazhar Alam Mian disagreed with the majority opinion.
Under the Amendment Ordinance, the Judges Committee constituted a five-member larger bench. Senior Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah disagreed with the Judges Committee over the exclusion of Justice Muneeb Akhtar from the Judges Committee.
