Lawyer arrested for misbehaving with CJP Qazi Faez Isa

Tayyab Mustafain Kazmi, a lawyer involved in an outburst against Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa during a Supreme Court hearing yesterday, was arrested by Islamabad police on Thursday.

Kazmi was taken into custody from F-7/4 and transferred to the Secretariat Police Station following his disruptive behaviour during proceedings on Article 63-A review petitions.

Kazmi, a former employee of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), made statements against the Chief Justice a day earlier. During the hearing, tensions rose when Kazmi, representing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), warned the court that 500 PTI lawyers were prepared to oppose any ruling against the party.

Chief Justice Isa, who presided over the five-member bench, promptly called for police intervention, stating, "Do you want institutions to be run through threats? My only fault is that I have always shown patience."

Despite Kazmi's aggressive stance, the chief justice made it clear that the court would not be intimidated. "You cannot run the courts through intimidation. We will continue with the proceedings, no matter how much opposition we face."

The hearing, which was part of a review petition on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 63-A, saw heightened emotions as Kazmi challenged the legality of the bench and criticised the judiciary.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, also part of the bench, expressed concern over the growing trend of targeting judges when decisions do not favour certain parties. "This behaviour is unacceptable. We are here for the integrity of the institution, not for money or power. The judiciary must remain independent."

Kazmi eventually left the courtroom, refusing to continue his arguments, and his subsequent arrest followed.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, overturning its 2022 decision on Article 63-A, which had previously disqualified defecting lawmakers by disregarding their votes. The court ruled that defecting lawmakers’ votes should indeed be counted, significantly shifting the legal interpretation of the constitutional clause.

The bench issued a unanimous short order, with a detailed judgment to follow at a later date.