Ruling parties want SC bench reconstituted

ISLAMABAD:

Three ruling political parties on Saturday asked the Supreme Court to form a bench comprising all SC judges, except Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, to hear the suo motu case about the delay in the announcement of dates for the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa assemblies’ elections.

The request for the reconstitution of the bench was presented in a joint civil miscellaneous application (CMA) by the PML-N, PPP and JUI-F.

In the application, the lawyers representing the three parties pointed out that the matter was taken up for hearing on February 23, 2023, when Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail raised the objection that as two members of the bench, Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi, had already rendered their opinion on the issue as recorded in order dated February 16, 2023, it would amount to a violation of Article 10-A of the parties involved.

The two judges in that verdict had noted that no progress appeared to have taken place for the elections for the Punjab Assembly, which stood dissolved on January 14, 2023 and elections to the legislature were required to be held within 90 days under Article 224-2 of the Constitution.

They had added that there was a “real and imminent danger of a clear and unambiguous constitutional command”.

Their observations had resulted in Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial taking suo motu notice of the issue, noting that several provisions of the Constitution needed to be considered as well as the relevant sections of the Election Act.

In the application, it was further pointed out that Justice Mandokhail had observed that it was not appropriate to refer the matter to CJP for taking suo moto under Article 184-3 of the Constitution.

Read SC explores link between accountability, fundamental rights

The judge had noted that the suo moto action was not justified.

The application read that on February 23, 2023, the SC had issued notices to relevant stakeholders including the applicants.

The applicants appeared before the court on February 24, 2023 through their lawyers and read a joint statement requesting the recusal of Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi from hearing any matter involving the PML-N, PPP and JUI-F.

"[The] circumstances have raised several questions of immense legal, constitutional and public importance,” the application read.

It stated that a bench comprising all SC judges, excluding Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi, should be constituted to hear the case “in the interest of justice and fairness”.

The application read that “the prayer has been made in the best interest of justice and to strengthen the confidence of the public in the Supreme Court”.

In a related development, the differences between the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have openly come out in the open as its executive body in a majority decision agreed to avail the services of senior lawyer Ahsan Bhoon to represent it in the suo motu case whereas its president, Abid Zuberi, named the bar’s secretary, Muqtadar Akhtar Shabbir, as the counsel in the proceedings.

The SCBA was issued a notice by the apex court in the case.

Read more: 'Draw line somewhere': Imran urges judiciary to protect fundamental rights

Its executive body selected Bhoon through a resolution in which nine of its 17 members voted in his favour.

Separately, various lawyers have filed applications in the SC for the right to be a party in the suo motu case.

In the applications filed by Advocate Shaukat Ali Joya and other lawyers, it has been contended that the three ruling parties were trying to influence the court proceedings through their request, which was against the law.

They added that the constitution of benches was the prerogative of the CJP and they wanted to play their constitutional role in the elections in the two provinces.

Earlier in the day, the CJP cancelled all the sittings of the judges included in the larger bench after 11:30 am for the suo motu case.

Justice Yahya Khan Afridi and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah were scheduled to hear cases after 11:30 am. However, these cases were delisted after the formation of the larger bench.