ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed the objections raised by PTI founder Imran Khan’s counsel over the formation of bench hearing a review petition against its judgment on Article 63A of the Constitution.
A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan conducted hearing of the review petitions.
At the outset of the hearing, Ali Zafar said that he would present “solid” arguments and seek more time to present them, saying that he needed to consult the former prime minister on the case.
The counsel sought the court’s permission to meet with Imran to discuss the case with him, at which CJP Isa directed him to begin his arguments. “If you had to consult with him, then you should’ve told us yesterday; we could’ve issued an order [in that regard],” the top judge said.
Here, Mustafeen Kazmi, who said he was a PTI lawyer, came to the rostrum and was told to go back. Following a harsh exchange of words with CJP Isa, Kazmi said the five-member larger bench was unconstitutional, as well as the inclusion of two judges in it.
“There are 500 lawyers standing outside [the SC]. Let’s see how a decision against us would be made,” the lawyer said, at which the Chief Justice ordered that the man be escorted out of the courtroom.
The development led to CJP Isa inquiring Zafar about the lawyer’s behaviour and censuring him. “What is happening Ali Zafar sahib? You come and insult us? We will strictly not tolerate this,” the chief justice asserted.
Distancing himself from Mustafeen and attempting to calm the air, the PTI Senator replied that he was presenting his arguments very respectfully and that Justice Isa was also listening to him with patience.
Zafar then continued with his arguments, saying that it was necessary for the respondents to be issued notices in the case. “This manner is not right; the bench is not lawful. It is not even right according to the amendment ordinance,” Zafar argued, objecting to the bench formation.
“Now you are threatening us,” the top judge observed. “Do you want to run the institutions in this manner? Every day it is said that there are two groups of judges,” Justice Mandokhail chimed in.
At one point during the hearing, Zafar contended that according to the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, benches were to be formed as per the majority view of a three-member committee of judges. “There is no scope in the law that two members of the committee form benches,” Imran’s lawyer asserted.
Referring to a recent ordinance enacted, the Chief Justice said: “The amendment ordinance has not been challenged before us (SC).” Zafar pointed out that Justice Mansoor’s letter wherein he had expressed displeasure with the ordinance, called for a full court to deliberate the matter.
Later during the hearing, CJP Isa said: “I have no issues with summoning a full court.” “Now, there would neither be authoritarianism in the country nor institutions,” CJP Faez observed.
At one point, Zafar urged the court to first decide whether the bench hearing the case was “lawful”, adding that he could present his arguments only once it had been decided.
Subsequently, the court dismissed the objection raised by Imran’s counsel. “We all have unanimously decided to dismiss your objection on the bench,” the CJP said.
Zafar then requested the court again that if the court had “decided to not include the verdict’s author” — Justice Munib Akhtar — in the bench, then he be allowed to meet his client.
The court accepted the lawyer’s plea, ordering the additional attorney general to make arrangements for Zafar’s meeting with Imran to discuss the case.
At the outset, SCBA President Shahzad Shaukat briefed about the background of the case. He told that on 8th March a motion for no-confidence against the then Prime Minister was moved in the National Assembly. Imran Khan asked party workers to stage a protest outside Sindh House in Islamabad.
The ex-president SCBA Ahsan Bhoon on March 18, 2022 filed a petition before the Supreme Court, adding that later President Arif Alvi filed a reference under Article 186 of the constitution, and PTI filed petition under Article 184(3) in April, while the five-judge bench headed by ex-CJP Umar Ata Bandial passed an order on May 17, 2022.
Shahzad said Ahsan then filed a review petition against the short order on June 22, 2022, while the detailed reasoning was announced a year after the short order.
The CJP questioned how both are two separate jurisdictions and how a verdict could be delivered by combining the two. “Only an opinion can be given on a presidential reference, not a decision. Aren’t the two jurisdictions different? Was there a court order at that time on the reasons for combining the two cases? Only legal questions raised by the president are answered,” the CJP noted.
He added that if the opinion on the reference is not followed, the president cannot be tried for contempt. When the SCBA president reminded that the president at that time was Dr Arif Alvi, the CJP remarked that the government of the time was also a petitioner in the case as a government. “What legal questions were raised by the president?” he asked.
Later, the bench deferred the hearing of the case till today.