Houbara bustard case: Justice Isa questions majority verdict

His contention is that neither the constitution nor the rules permit such a course of action

ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court has raised serious questions in a dissent note over the majority judgment, which cancelled the ban on hunting of Houbara bustards in the country.

The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, headed by former chief justice Justice Jawwad S Khawaja on August 19, 2015, imposed a complete ban on the hunting of the bird. Later, several petitioners – including federal, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan governments – had filed review petitions in the apex court, which on December 10 referred the case to Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali to consider constitution of a larger bench.



Headed by the CJP, the bench comprising Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Qazi Faez Isa on January 22 set aside its judgment on the banning of houbara bustard.

However, Justice Isa, who was the author of the main judgment, opposed the majority judges’ verdict and issued a dissenting note on Thursday. It will be his second dissenting note in this matter. Earlier, he opposed the majority judges’ recommendation regarding the formation of larger bench.

In his fresh 14-page dissenting note, Justice Isa questioned the exclusion of Justice Dost Muhammad Khan in the larger bench, which had set aside August 19, 2015 judgment.

He said that since a larger bench was specifically constituted to hear the review petition, there was no point to exclude a member who had earlier heard the case. Justice Isa also questioned that if there is “an apparent error on the face of the record”, (in the judgment under review,) and it is “set aside”, why are the cases “listed for hearing afresh”.

He said that neither the constitution nor the rules permit or contemplate this course of action, adding that the decision given after the “hearing afresh” would also be subject to review.

“Would the review be heard by the same bench or yet a larger one? The judgment then under review could also be set aside and the case ordered to be reheard, as has been done by the majority judgment. As a result, the legal certitude and the authoritativeness expected from the decisions of the Supreme Court have been undermined.

Justice Isa expressed concern that the foreign ministry was facilitating the transgression of the act, which is a federal law, and the wildlife laws of three provinces.

Justice Isa observed: “New and novel concepts may be welcomed in certain disciplines but the legal edifice should not be subjected to such vagaries. We must endeavour to ensure that the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws is long-lasting and sustainable.”

Published in The Express Tribune, February 5^th,  2016.