ISLAMABAD: Senior puisne judge Qazi Faez Isa said in a judicial note on Saturday that a six-member bench that reversed his order to freeze suo motu proceedings did not “constitute a constitutional court nor possessed with any jurisdiction”.
The six-judge bench upheld the registrar’s March 31 circular to disregard Justice Isa’s order. It was to halt cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on April 4. The larger bench’s order confirmed the SC registrar’s circular. Judge Isa requested the Cabinet Division’s recall after the registrar’s directive on March 31. The registrar recalled.
In addition to the six-judge bench judgement, a three-member bench led by the chief justice heard a polling delay petition. It was under Article 184(3) and found Judge Isa’s directives unaltered. A nine-page judicial note that initially uploaded but later removed from the court’s official website. In said note Justice Isa noted that since the gathering in a court of six distinguished judges not permissible under the Constitution or any law. The Supreme Court’s order of March 29—Justice Isa’s order—not set aside by the registrar’s note.
“Decisions emanating from a courtroom overcast with the shadow of autocracy cannot displace the Constitution,” Judge Isa said. It indicated a roster issued for the same day—a practise only followed in extreme emergencies, but there was none.
The case roster issued the same day, and the matter listed after court time without prior notification to the attorney general of Pakistan, as per Rule XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The six-member bench’s ruling states that the AGP on court’s notice and PMDC’s attorney in presence without prior notice. It means he verbally or telephonically summoned, contrary to ordinary practise, the judge noted.
‘Constitutional flaws’
Judge Isa noted that the federal court ruling allowed future dictators to remove civilian governments. Honourable Judge Isa regretted that the CJP and Supreme Court judges assisted tyrants. As well as broke up the largest Muslim nation because constitutional irregularities were acceptable.
Judge Isa noted that the six-judge judgement calls the CJP the “Master of Rolls”. He said its a phrase not found in the Constitution. As well as not in laws, or Supreme Court Rules 1980. The SC court observed that Justice Munib Akhtar’s prior note “clearly and categorically lays down the rule that suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can only and solely be invoked by the CJP” in the April 4 order.
Judge Isa noted that the majority ruling seemed to violate the well-established rule that the CJP was the roster master.
“With respect, Justice Munib Akhtar’s earlier note was not a legal precedent. In any event, the claimed argument is without a constitutional or legal foundation,” he said, adding that the stated rule of law not enacted pursuant to law nor can it be categorised as rule of law, particularly when it contravenes the Constitution, which does not grant the CJP such powers.
Justice Isa added that the April 4 reasoning also flawed, and ironically, in a matter in which the so-called larger bench had wrongly assumed jurisdiction, the April 4 note had no constitutional or legal validity to hold that March 29 order (Justice Isa order) without and beyond jurisdiction.
