CJ Isa pushes forward on Article 63-A review

Justice Munib Akhtar may have refused to be part of a larger bench to decide the SCBA review petition against the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, but Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa is determined to decide the matter in haste.

The SC majority judgment had held that votes of defecting lawmakers would not be counted under Article 63-A of the Constitution.

The fate of the SCBA review petition is crucial for the 26th constitutional amendment which intends to introduce a judicial package.

The government will likely table the bill for a fresh constitutional amendment in the next ten days.

Currently, the government needs more numbers to pass the planned amendment. Even if JUI-F, led by Molana Fazalur Rehman, supports the proposed judicial package, the government may still need a few votes in the Senate to get a two-thirds majority.

If the SC reverses the earlier judgment on Article 63-A, the vote of defecting lawmakers will be counted. However, PTI lawyers are showing concern that the judgment will open the door to floor-crossing and horse trading.

They are left wondering why this matter was not fixed before the July 12 order in the reserved seats case. It is to be noted that the government lost two-thirds majority in view of the July 12 order in which the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was directed to allocate reserved seats to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)

After the July 12 order, CJP Isa, on July 18, wanted to list this case. He had proposed a larger bench, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. However, on September 23, he changed course by constituting a larger bench led by himself.

Justice Munib Akhtar also noted that proposed bench was changed without giving reasons. There is a perception the change came because the earlier proposed larger bench could have taken longer to decide the matter. However, the present bench, led by CJP Isa, will decide the matter before the tabling of the constitutional amendment draft.

It is learnt that a private counsel was engaged to again prepare the draft of the amendments. There is a chance that the major concerns of PPP and JUI-F would be redressed in the new draft. Justice Munib Akhtar, in his second letter, raised questions on the validity of the order passed by four judges. He says they cannot have sat and heard a matter which was listed before a five-member larger bench. "What appears to have happened prima facie seems to be a complete departure from all precedent, and applicable law and rules. Respectfully, it is not acceptable to me. I have all the respect for the four Judges who sat in court and purported to conduct the hearing in the CRP. I must nonetheless regretfully, though respectfully, record my protest as to what has been done," reads the second letter written by Justice Munib Akhtar.

It is learnt that after Justice Munib Akhtar's refusal to become part of the larger bench, CJP Isa has summoned a meeting of the committee to reconstitute the larger bench. Lawyers are wondering that when the author judge is expressing inability to sit in the bench, then why is urgency being shown to decide the matter at such a time?

There are reports that if CJP Isa does not summon a full court meeting, other judges may evolve their next course of action. It is an open secret that the independence of the judiciary is under attack and the government is comfortable with the internal clashes among judges. Meanwhile, PTI Founder Imran Khan has called party workers to reach D-Chowk Islamabad to protest against the judicial package on October 4.