Hearing of Article 63-A adjourned due to Justice Muneeb’s absence; CJP indicates efforts to persuade him

The hearing of the review petitions against the decision not to count the votes of dissident members of parliament under Article 63-A was adjourned due to Justice Muneeb’s absence.

The Chief Justice indicated that efforts would be made to persuade him, stating that if he does not join, a new bench will be formed.

According to media, a larger bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa heard the review petitions related to Article 63-A.

The bench included Justices Muneeb Akhtar, Ameen-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhel, and Mazhar Alam Miankhel, but Justice Muneeb was absent, leaving a chair empty next to the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice mentioned that a five-member bench had been formed, and that a previous five-member bench, led by former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, had heard the case.

A majority decision of three members was made on Article 63-A, with the bench formed based on transparency.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar had written to the registrar stating that he could not participate in the case today and requested that his letter be made part of the record in this review case.

He stated that they were about to adjourn, and that they would request Justice Muneeb Akhtar to join the bench.

Justice Muneeb had participated in hearings today and was present in the tea room, and his absence from the hearing was by his own choice.

The review case will be heard again tomorrow, and the Chief Justice expressed hope that Justice Muneeb Akhtar would join the hearing.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated that the law requires the same bench to hear the review petition; he has only replaced the former Chief Justice.

Justice Aijazul Ahsan’s position was filled by Justice Ameen-ud-Din, and they will attempt to persuade Justice Muneeb to join; otherwise, the bench will be reconstituted.

The review of Article 63-A has been pending for over two years, and they respect Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s opinion but cannot keep the Supreme Court inactive.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan engaged in a dialogue with the Additional Attorney General, asking if he had anything to say, to which the Attorney General acknowledged the Chief Justice’s wisdom.

The Chief Justice read the text of the letter in which Justice Muneeb stated that he could not be part of the bench constituted by the Practice and Procedure Committee.

He clarified that he was not refusing to sit on the bench, and his non-participation should not be misunderstood. He requested that his letter be made part of the record in the review case.

The Chief Justice noted that it is not customary to make such letters part of the court record and that it would have been more appropriate for Justice Muneeb Akhtar to provide his opinion in the bench.

He emphasized that he has always encouraged dissenting opinions and that the review case has been pending for over two years.

The case regarding Article 63-A is very important; a judge cannot refuse to hear a case in court.

The Chief Justice respected Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s opinion and stated that they would try to ensure he joins the bench, as one judge cannot decide the fate of a litigant or compel another judge to sit on the bench.

However, the Supreme Court cannot be left in limbo, as the Parliament did not enact the Practice and Procedure Act to paralyze the Supreme Court.

Advocate Ali Zafar appeared in court on behalf of the founder of PTI and stated that he attempted to obtain the power of attorney for Imran Khan, which jail authorities returned.

He mentioned that the judges’ committee did not form a bench under the presidential ordinance, as one member judge was not included in the committee.

He requested that the matter of the judges’ committee be decided by the full court.

The Chief Justice responded that he was a party to the main case and that they would hear him in the review as well. The court granted permission to make Ali Zafar a party in the case.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel stated that issuing a presidential ordinance is a constitutional right.

The hearing was subsequently adjourned until tomorrow.

It is noteworthy that during the previous PTI government, a presidential reference was sent for the interpretation of Article 63-A.

In a majority decision by the Supreme Court’s three-member bench, it was stated that the votes of dissident members would not be counted.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhel and Mazhar Alam Miankhel disagreed with the majority opinion.

Under the amended ordinance, the judges’ committee constituted a five-member larger bench.

Senior Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah expressed dissent regarding Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s exclusion from the judges’ committee.