Supreme Court judge Justice Munib Akhtar responded to the SC’s “purported order” regarding the Article 63-A review case on Monday, highlighting that the matter was fixed before a five-member bench but heard by four judges.

“I am at a loss to understand as to how the five-member bench constituted in terms as set out in my earlier note sent to you today could be ‘converted’ into a four-member bench,” he said in his letter to the SC registrar.

The SC judge’s response came after the apex court asked the registrar to place before him the instant order with the request to join the bench.

Earlier in the day, the judge did not show up for the hearing of appeals in the Article 63-A case. He wrote a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and informed him that he would not be able to attend proceedings.

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

In his response to the registrar, Justice Akhtar added that there was a space for five signatures in the order and that where he would have signed was blank.

“Therefore, prima facie, and until and unless some further information or record becomes available to me, I must regretfully conclude that what you have sent me in terms of para 2 of your note is not, and cannot in law, be a judicial order,” it said.

Also, read this

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

Judges committee a one-man show, says SC’s Justice Shah

Justice Shah leaves without attending SC Practice and Procedure Committee meeting: sources

According to the SC judge, four judges could not have sat and heard the matter that was listed before a five-member Bench. “What appears to have happened prima facie seems to be a complete departure from all precedent, and applicable law and rules. Respectfully, it is not acceptable to me.”

He went on to add that he has respect for the four judges who sat in the court and “purported to conduct” the hearing. “I must nonetheless regretfully, though respectfully, record my protest as to what has been done. Therefore, the direction contained in para 4 of the purported order [which prima facie is in law no order at all] is of no consequence.”

In the circumstances, he said: “I believe that the only response that I can give, in the available facts and circumstances, is to once again draw attention to my earlier note of today addressed to the Registrar.”