Constitutional bench is full court, says judge

Issues notices to provinces in ghee industry tax case

ISLAMABAD:

A Supreme Court judge on Tuesday observed that the newly formed seven-member Constitutional Bench should now be considered the SC's full court.

During hearing of a petition with regard to imposition of tax on ghee making industries, a counsel for the petitioner stated that a full court had already issued a verdict in the case.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, a member of the Constitutional Bench, noted that the nature of the full court had changed after the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court should be considered equivalent to a full court.

Justice Mandokhail also stated that he was part of a Balochistan High Court (BHC) bench which issued an order in the ghee factories tax. "I should therefore not be part of the bench hearing the appeal," he said.

The bench later issued notices to provinces in the ghee tax case and adjourned the case indefinitely.

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on November 5 formed a seven-member Constitutional Bench of the SC in line with the 26th Constitutional Amendment passed by parliament on October 21.

The bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan includes Justice Ayesha Malik from Punjab; Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan from Balochistan; Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi from Sindh and Justice Musarrat Hilali from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

The Constitutional Bench started hearing cases from November 14.

The Constitutional Bench dismissed a petition regarding the registration of two first information reports (FIRs) for the same incident, declaring it inadmissible.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the number of pending cases in the Supreme Court has reached 60,000 due to such cases, and this figure is repeatedly brought to their attention. "Why should we not dismiss your petition with a penalty? You are a lawyer, and yet you bring such cases to the courts."

Justice Mazhar noted that the court has already ruled with regard to double FIRs in the Sughran Bibi case. "Why didn't you approach a high court for the quashing of the second FIR?" he asked.

During hearing of a suo motu case, provincial law officers stated that Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) had enacted the required legislation.

Justice Mazhar remarked that the other provinces should also legislate, noting that cases continue for decades when laws are not enacted. Justice Mandokhail stated that when tasks are left undone, the blame is shifted to the courts. The Constitutional Bench adjourned the hearing indefinitely.

Justice Ayesha A Malik recused herself from hearing the suo motu case regarding journalists' salaries.