The minutes of the three-judge Practice and Procedure Committee’s July 18 meeting were issued on Saturday which said that Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa called for ‘urgently’ fixing the review petitions against the reserved seats case ruling for hearing. But two other members – Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar – were not convinced, citing most of the judges of 13-member bench were on holiday and a detailed order of case was awaited.
“It would be unjust and unfair if the review petitions against the Supreme Court’s reserved seats case ruling were not fixed urgently,” CJP Isa was quoted as highlighting in the minutes of the meeting. “The order under review necessitated reopening of the court even if it required cancellation of vacations.”
Minutes of the committee meeting were released on Saturday. The committee comprising the three senior SC judges was formed under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.
Justice Akhat who is on vacation joined the meeting via video link.
According to the minutes, the registrar pointed out that two urgent applications had been filed with such review petitions wherein the petitioners had pleaded that the order under review had fixed a timeline of 15 days and if such an order was implemented the petitions would become “infructuous.”
The ruling party PML-N and three of its members have filed review petitions against SC’s July 13 ruling, awarding Imran Khan’s PTI more parliamentary seats.
Earlier this week, a full-court bench of the SC set aside orders of the Peshawar High Court and Election Commission of Pakistan taking away reserved seats from the Sunni Ittehad Council. The court ruled that the PTI should be considered a political party and given reserved seats.
The decision was made by a majority of eight and announced by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. But the majority order was read out by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. The PTI has been given 15 days to file documents that will allow the party to get the reserved seats.
The ECP has decided to implement the SC’s decision on the reserved seats case with a few conditions, saying that it’s the law wing has been instructed to point out any possible hurdles in the implementation of the decision so the top court can be approached.
At the committee meeting, Justice Mansoor and Justice Akhtar stated that the review petitions could only be fixed originally before the 13-member bench that heard the matter originally as most of the judges were on holiday or out of the country.
They added that it would be appropriate if the matter was fixed after the summer vacations when all the 13 judges who heard the appeals were available at the principal seat.
It was also pointed out that the review petitions “are not fixed until detailed judgement is released by the bench.”
CJP Isa urged that the right to review had been provided under the Constitution and such right had to be preferred over the judges’ convenience (who are availing leave or vacation).
In response, Justice Akhtar said that the summer vacations were provided under the rules. Moreover, an SC rule provided that the “judicial year of the court shall commence on the second Monday in September each year and continue until the commencement of the vacation in the year next following.”
He stated that another rule provided that summer vacation of the court shall commence on June 15 or on such date as may be fixed in each year by the CJP and notified in the Gazette.
CJP Isa extended the date of commencement of summer vacations as July 15, however, there is no provision in the court order for cancellation of the summer vacations once the same has been announced unless the matter is put before the full court and the rules are amended accordingly.
The committee by majority while the CJP dissented decided to fix the review petitions after the summer vacations when all the 13 judges who heard the appeals were available at the principal seat.
Also, read this
Pakistan Bar Council calls for special court to deal with political cases
In his separate note, CJP Isa stated that the right provided by the Constitution to file a review petition and to have it urgently heard cannot be made redundant or negated.
“With great respect, two untenable reasons have been given by my distinguished colleagues for not listing the review petitions for hearing,” he said and added that no one’s rights can be adversely affected on account of an act of the court.
“If such a scenario is accepted then it would be equally valid that detailed reasons are purposely delayed and or never provided and thus render the Constitution, which provides for a review petition, and the law, which mandates urgent hearing, utterly meaningless,” it said.
The CJP wrote that the review petitions and the accompanying applications must be fixed for hearing in court after one week before the judges who had earlier heard the said cases; “one week gives sufficient time to enable Justice Ayesha Malik [who is abroad] to join the proceedings.”
