ISLAMABAD:
The Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) objection to the formation of the bench for hearing of the review petitions against the apex court’s decision of granting the reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
In a short order, the 11-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, allowed the live streaming of the court proceedings in the case – also requested by the SIC – and issued instruction to the IT department make arrangements in this regard.
The CB dismissed three separate miscellaneous applications of the SIC, including the one pertaining to including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan in the bench for the hearing of the review petitions.
The plea for calling a meeting of the Judicial Commission to nominate new judges to the CB after the Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi declined to sit on the bench, was also rejected. The bench also rejected the plea for withholding the proceedings until decision on the 26th Amendment case.
The short order of the court stated that the detailed decision would be issued later. The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday. The Supreme Court has directed the IT Department to make arrangements to broadcast the court proceedings live.
Earlier during the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of the women affected by the Supreme Court’s verdict on July 12, 2024 continued his arguments. He opposed delaying the proceedings, arguing that every matter before the CB was linked to the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
He argued that in view of the Article 191A of the Constitution and the Practice Procedure Act, the Supreme Court Rules of 1980 did not apply to the CB. On that Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked which rule was not compatible with the new constitutional amendment.
Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that the 26th Amendment recognised the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench, while in 1980 the bench did not exist. After the 26 Amendment, the CB would review the case pertaining to interpretation of the Constitution.
Arguing against postponing the proceedings until the Supreme Court decision on the challenges to the 26th Amendment, Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that if the application was allowed, it would open the floodgate of the similar pleas in many other cases.
It was the court’s prerogative to decided which case would be heard and when, adding that no one could dictate the court. Suppose if the court grants this application, then this CB would not be able to hear any other petitions until the 26th Amendment was decided.
He also opined that he still considered the current CB as a 13-member bench, and not an 11-member bench, adding that a majority of seven judges would decide on the review. As for the live streaming of the proceedings, he said it was the court’s decision and that he had no objection to it.
When the judges rose after Makhdoom Ali Khan finished his arguments, SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui approached the bench and in a loud voice asked whether the right to rejoinder to the reply had been abolished after the 26th Amendment.
Justice Aminuddin Khan told the lawyer that the bench had heard him with great patience and if he had something to add, he could submit it in writing. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that 13-member bench had also rejected the petitions of the SIC.
On that Siddiqui directly told Khan that then why the SIC was made party to the case. Justice Mandokhail, while intervening, censured Faisal Siddiqui, saying that Makhdoom Ali Khan was a senior lawyer, and that he should tone down and should not talk directly to him.
On that, Siddiqui apologise to the court. He insisted that he should be listened to by the court, adding that if the two dissenting judges did not sign the final decision, its implementation would be difficult, therefore, they should be included in the bench.
He further stated that hearing of the 26th Amendment case first would affect other cases before the bench. In fact, he added, every case was linked to the 26th Amendment, therefore, the case should be decided first.
Later a short order of the court was announced. It stated that the detailed decision would be issued later. The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday. The bench directed the IT Department to make arrangements to show the court proceedings live.
