SC adjourns Justice Isa's review plea until third week of November

Petitioners sought time for further preparation, modification of petition

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of Justice Qazi Faez Isa till the third week of November.

The petitioners sought time for further preparation and modification of the petition.

A seven-judge larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial said the petitioners should be given a full hearing.

Earlier, on June 19, a ten-judge full-court quashed a presidential reference that accused that Justice Isa had committed misconduct by not disclosing his family member’s foreign properties and sought his removal.

In the split order, seven of the judges had, however, referred the case to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and ordered the tax authority to launch an inquiry into foreign assets of Justice Isa’s family.

The short order had asked the FBR chairman to present a report on the basis of the inquiry to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the constitutional forum that can hold a superior court judge accountable, and the SJC, according to some legal expert, could revive the reference and initiate proceedings against Isa.

Sarina Isa, Justice Qazi Faez Isa and the Pakistan Bar Council had filed separate appeals against the June 19 order. Some other lawyer bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association, have also filed review petitions.

Challenging the short order, Sarina Isa said the new class of people that the SC order has created includes the spouses and children of judges, with their assets and liabilities being elevated to the status of public importance impinging on the fundamental rights of all citizens of Pakistan.

She said the creation of such a class backed by a judicial order without any foundation in law may be seen to be invidious and discriminatory. The petitioner said under Article 194 of the Constitution, all judges of the superior courts take the same oath, under the third schedule.

The petitioner said she and her children are being made to explain their sources of income to the exclusion of the spouses and children of all 139 sitting chief justices and judges of the superior courts.