ISLAMABAD  -  Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Friday said that the Supreme Court Constitutional Bench holds authority to take suo motu  notice, if necessary.

The apex court judge, a member of the six-member constitutional bench, made these remarks during the proceeding of the anti-terrorism case.

The bench conducted hearing of 16 cases pending for a long time in the apex court. It disposed of many cases, while hearings of a few were adjourned by issuing notices, and made crucial remarks.

Munir Paracha, representing the petitioner, argued that no further action was required in the case. He contended that following the 26th Amendment, the Supreme Court no longer had the right to initiate suo moto proceedings.

However, Justice Mazhar told him that though the amendment had changed procedural aspects, but has not taken away Supreme Court’s power to take suo moto notice. “The procedure may have changed, but still the Supreme Court has power to take suo moto. The only difference is that such cases are now heard by the Constitutional Bench,” he added.

“Constitutional Bench is empowered to hear such cases and initiate suo motu proceedings if necessary,” the SC judge observed. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel stated that this issue will be considered in another relevant case.

In a suo motu notice case regarding the private use of Islamabad’s Convention Centre, the bench disposed of the case after the additional attorney general informed it that the expenses incurred on the PTI’s event at the centre had been paid after the ceremony to the CDA. “Run the Convention Centre according to the institution’s policy,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked.

The bench deferred the proceedings for two weeks in another case regarding the concealment of foreign bank accounts and recovery of allegedly looted money from abroad. It also sought reports from the FIA and FBR on secret foreign bank accounts as well as recovery of looted money.

Justice Mazhar remarked that orders were issued seeking reports from all agencies, including FIA and FBR. The FBR counsel told the bench that the issue concerned the bureau and FIA, adding that agencies had nothing to do with it.

Moreover, in a contempt case, the constitutional bench gave time to former federal ombudsman Yasmin Abbasi to file a reply and adjourned the matter. Justice Amin remarked that Ms Abbasi did not appear in court, while Justice Mazhar said she had been appearing in the past hearings in personal capacity. “Yasmin Abbasi is no longer the federal ombudsman, why are we going ahead?” Justice Mandokhel questioned.

Justice Musarrat Hilali asked that whether the actions of the federal ombudsman can be challenged in a high court. Justice Amin replied that if a forum takes action beyond its authority, the high court had the jurisdiction. The court then ordered the federal ombudsman’s lawyer to submit a reply after seeking instructions on the matter.

The constitutional bench disposed of another case on an appeal under the Banking Ordinance.

Furthermore, in another case related to the establishment of an IT university, the constitutional bench directed the parties to resolve the issues among themselves and adjourned hearing for 10 days.

CDA counsel Munir Piracha said that the land could not be given away for educational purposes without the approval of the federal cabinet. He added that after the cabinet’s approval, land could be allotted in Sector I-17.