ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday quashed a probe into foreign assets believed to be in possession of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and accepted for hearing a set of review petitions filed by the judge against the verdict in the presidential reference against him.
“For the reasons to be recorded later […] review petitions are allowed [for proceedings] and the directions contained in [the] short order passed in [June last year] and other connected matters, alongwith supporting detailed reasons given in the majority judgment of the same date, are recalled and set-aside,” a short order read.
Court Order 26 Apr 2021 by Newsroom PT on Scribd
The petitions were filed last year against a short order and a subsequent detailed judgement on the filing of presidential reference against the judge that accused him of being in possession of assets in the United Kingdom.
On June 19, seven judges of the 10-member larger bench quashed the reference but ordered the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to conduct an inquiry into the assets and submit a report to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
In a 6:4 majority decision today, the bench accepted the request made by Sarina Isa, the judge’s spouse. However, five judges accepted Justice Isa’s review petition while five were against it.
The bench declared that legal actions taken by the top revenue collector and all other bodies into the assets in possession of Ms. Isa and her children as “illegal”.
The report prepared by the FBR could not be challenged in the top judicial body or any other legal forum, the judgement announced.
After completion of the hearing, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, in his remarks, said that the bench needed time for consultation.
Earlier this month, the apex court rejected 6-4 a petition filed by Justice Isa that sough a live coverage of proceedings of his review petitions.
During the proceedings, Justice Bandial acknowledged the right of the people to have access to information in matters of public importance under Article 19-A but said the details and modalities of which are yet to be decided by the full court.
The dissenting note observed that the aforementioned article created an obligation on state institutions to take the necessary measures to ensure the realisation of the fundamental rights of people to have access to information in matters of public importance.
“Cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, including review petitions and other matters arising therein, are matters of public importance, and the public has a right to know and see how proceedings in these cases are conducted and concluded by the Court,” it read.
“We, therefore, hold that live streaming of court hearings of these cases should be made available for the information of the public through a link on the official website of this court.”
