A dramatic scene unfolded in the Supreme Court on Monday as top court judge Justice Munib Akhtar did not show up for the hearing of appeals in the Article 63-A case.

A five-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa took up the appeals. The bench also included Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Mandokhail and Justice Mazhar Alam.

CJP Isa stated that Justice Munib had written to inform him that he would not be able to attend proceedings. The proceedings were then adjourned.

The letter written by the top court judge to the registrar said that the bench had been formed by a new committee under the Practice and Procedure ordinance, therefore he could not be part of the bench.

He also requested that his absence “not be misconstrued” and that the letter should be made part of the court’s record.

CJP Isa added that the bench would try to convince Justice Munib to attend the proceedings on Tuesday. He added that the letter could not be added to the court’s record as per tradition.

The SC had previously scheduled the review appeals on the interpretation of Article 63-A for September 23.

The court’s May 17, 2022, decision on a presidential reference regarding Article 63-A stated that a vote cast by a defected member of parliament against party policy would not be counted and that the duration of disqualification would be determined by Parliament.

Also, read this

Justice Ahsan, Justice Akhtar interpolated by CJP Isa

Tiresome cliches do not controvert facts, CJP tells Justice Mansoor in strongly-worded reply

Justice Munib walks out of meeting of Judicial Commission

This 3-2 decision, led by then-Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, saw Justices Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissenting. The majority opinion, written by Justice Akhtar, was challenged through various review petitions that have remained pending until now.

Justice Akhtar’s letter

Justice Munib referred to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s note of September 23 in his letter, adding that the senior puisne judge had raised both procedural and substantive points in his letter against the Practice and Procedure Ordinance. He lamented that the CJP had not answered the points.

He added that the CJP’s letter was ’in part smear campaign and part self-adulation“.

Justice Munib said that the CJP had originally tipped Justice Shah to lead the bench but had chosen to head it himself. He also questioned why the matter had not been fixed until now even though the committee has been functional since last October.

He also expressed concerns over Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel’s inclusion in the bench since he is a retired judge serving as an ad-hoc member of the bench. He considered Justice Miankhel’s inclusion to be contrary to Article 182.