ISLAMABAD: In a rejoinder to the Supreme Court six-member larger bench verdict, senior Judge of the apex court Justice Faez Isa has raised questions over the six-member larger bench verdict, recalling the interim order to postpone suo motu cases proceedings till amendments were made in the SC Rules, 1980.
On March 29, a special SC bench led by Justice Isa, with a two-to-one majority, ordered suspending all suo motu cases — under Article 184(3) of the Constitution — until amendments were made to the SC rules governing the chief justice’s discretionary powers.
The special bench order came on the suo motu case related to examining the award of additional 20 marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates applying for enrollment to an MBBS/BDS degree.
The three-member bench was headed by Justice Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Shahid Waheed.
Subsequently on April 4, a larger bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, recalled the interim order authored by Justice Isa.
The larger bench detailed court order stating that Justice Isa and Justice Aminuddin’s order was “clearly violative” of a five-member bench’s August 2021 order that only the chief justice could take suo motu notice.
In a nine-page note issued today, Justice Isa maintained that since the gathering in a court of six distinguished judges was not permissible under the Constitution or under any law, “the Supreme Court’s order dated 29 March 2023 passed in Case No 4 could not have been set aside by the 4 April Note”.
“Decisions emanating from a courtroom overcast with the shadow of autocracy cannot displace the Constitution,” it added.
Justice Isa while pointing out “procedural irregularities” committed by the six-member larger bench said that the roster was issued for the same day, which is only done when there is an extraordinary emergency, but in the instant matter there was none.
“The very day the case roster was issued the matter was also listed, and after court-time; No prior notice of the listing of the matter was issued; Notice was not issued to the Attorney-General for
Pakistan as per Order XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,” read the note.
The counsel of PMDC was in attendance (without prior notice), which meant he was verbally or telephonically sent for, contrary to usual practice, it added.
