Naqvi objects to SC registrar’s notice

Judge again requests expeditious listing of his constitution petition against SJC proceedings

ISLAMABAD:

 

Supreme Court judge Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi has called for expeditious listing of his constitution petitions challenging the proceedings initiated against him by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on the basis of a slew of misconduct allegations.

On Monday, the advocate on record (AOR) responded on the instruction of Justice Naqvi to the Registrar Office's notice dated November 30. In the notice, the registrar had asked the judge whether he wanted to proceed with his petitions, filed respectively on November 20 and November 30.

Requesting the Registrar Office to withdraw its November 30 notice, the judge urged it to place both his constitution petitions before a three-member committee of senior judges constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 for appropriate orders. “Thereafter, the petitions along with the applications for interim relief be numbered and fixed for hearing

Taking exception to the registrar’s notice, the reply said the notice and the order, purportedly passed by the Registrar, were ultra vires the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The registrar has no authority to inquire from a petitioner whether he or she wants to proceed with a case or not. This notice is, therefore, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

It noted that both constitution petitions raised questions of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights. The points raised require interpretation of a number of constitutional provisions, including but not limited to Articles 4, 9, 10A, 14, 25, 209 and 210 of the Constitution, it said.

“As per Section 2 of 2023 Act every, 'cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed off by a bench constituted by the committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two next most senior Judges, in order of seniority'.”

“Under Section 3 of the 2023 Act any petition invoking the original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, 'shall first be placed before the committee constituted under section 2 for examination and if the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights…is involved, it shall constitute a Bench…for adjudication of the matter'.”

“According to Section 4 of the 2023 Act for petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution involving interpretation of constitutional provisions the Committee, 'shall constitute a bench comprising not less than five Judges of the Supreme Court'.”

The reply said neither petition has been numbered or listed for hearing till date. “Both should now be fixed together. This is in violation of the provisions of the 2023 Act,” it added.

The reply said under the 2023 Act the committee is not authorised to delegate to the registrar its authority under Sections 2, 3 and 4 and the registrar has no authority to determine the maintainability of petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Even otherwise this court has consistently held that maintainability of a petition is to be decided by a bench of this court and not by the registrar.

“The registrar has no authority to decide whether any constitution petition involves interpretation of constitutional provisions. This authority is exclusively vested in the committee under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2023 Act,” it added.

Meanwhile, one of the petitioners who lodged misconduct allegations against Justice Naqvi has submitted an application in the SJC, contending that one of its members, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, should recuse himself from hearing the complaint filed against Justice Naqvi in view of conflict of interest.

The complainant stated that Justice Ahsan was part of a bench that was allegedly formed through manipulation at the behest of Justice Naqvi in February this year. He claimed that Justice Ahsan had twice voted against sending show cause notices to the petitioner judge, a fact that, he claimed, points to his partiality.