ISLAMABAD - Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court of Pakistan that under Article 184(3) of Constitution the Supreme Court had power to give directions for expeditious disposal of cases. 

The AAG said that Supreme Court’s directions to the FBR, while quashing the Presidential Reference against Justice Qazi Faez were for the early disposal of the matter. 

He said this before a 10-member larger bench of the apex court which heard the review petitions of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, SCBA, PBC and the provincial bar councils & associations and the petition of Sarina Isa against the apex court judgement on Presidential Reference. 

The bench inquired from the AAG that did the referral of the matter to the FBR violate any rights of the petitioner. He replied in negative but said that the report of the FBR had been submitted in the SJC and the bench had ordered that its copies be shared with the bench members and the parties. 

At that Justice Maqbool Baqir stopped him and asked him not to refer the report. He said it was beyond the ambit the court and any member of the bench to have a view of it. Justice Bandial said that when time would come they would see the matter. 

Justice Muneeb remarked that the apex court order said that the FBR report be placed before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) and the Council could take suo moto regarding the matter. 

He said that there were laws which said that the public office-holders were responsible for their children and wife. 

Hamid Khan said that SJC was not continuing body and it springs to life when it had to make an inquiry. He said that the SC short order contained direction to the Council and the FBR. 

Later, the bench adjourned the case till today.

 

He questioned that how the SJC would take suo moto on the issue when already the apex court had given it directions. 

Justice Bandial inquired that could the Supreme Court direct the Council for consideration of any material? He said if the material was already available with the SJC then could it start suo moto proceeding. Hamid Khan replied that it was very simple that the SJC could not initiate proceeding on the FBR report. He said that the Council prerogative would be comprised for taking suo moto in the instant matter due to the direction of the apex court. 

Rasheed A Rizvi, appearing on behalf of Karachi Bar Association and PFUJ adopted the arguments of Hamid Khan. 

Earlier, Justice Qazi Faez Isa filed a statement on the questions asked by Justice Bandial. 

Justice Bandial on April 20, 2021 asked the Justice Qazi Faez to reply: “First that you have nothing to do with the bank accounts of your wife. Second, you are unaware of money withdrawn or deposited in those accounts. You have no knowledge of the debit and credit entries of your wife’s accounts, and whatever spent from those accounts you are not concerned.” Justice Qazi Faez was directed to reply the questions by Wednesday. 

The statement of Justice Isa said that answering questions would be effectively endorsing a patent illegality and undermines his own case that nothing could be added to the Presidential Reference. 

Justice Faez did not reply the question but submitted; “If the petitioner [Justice Faez] answers them then he will effectively be endorsing a patent illegality and undermine his own case that nothing can be added to the reference.” He further submitted that it was not appropriate to introduce the report at the stage of hearing of the said review applications. He said, “If the petitioner responds to the queries it will become i) Reference, ii) plus rejoinder, iii) plus SJC’s questions, iv) plus petitioner’s wife and children v) plus FBR, vi) plus chairman FBR’s report vii) plus SJC empowered to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the report and viii) and the questions.” 

Justice Faez, however, in his statement, corrected the misconception about privately meeting with Justice Umar Ata Bandial. The judge submitted; “The petitioner states on oath that he has never once discussed his case with the lordship [Justice Bandial]. The petitioner does not even go to the tearoom because the petitioner considers that it will be inappropriate to sit with his colleagues who are hearing his case.” 

He said, “The petitioner also requested in writing that the Chief Justice should not make him sit in any bench with any of the lordships hearing his case. Justice Bandial was ever so kind to send a bottle of honey from his farm, which was returned with thanks as it may create misgivings.” 

He said, “The petitioner and his wife have also politely declined all private invitations extended by any judge because it will bring them in private contact with those hearing their cases. On the retirement of Justice Faisal Arab the petitioner attended his lordship’s reference and the official dinners held in the premises of the Supreme Court, but for the stated reasons declined all private invitations held in his honour.” 

“The petitioner has interacted with the Justice Umar Ata Bandial when performing his duties and to maintain a healthy and happy working relationship,” Justice Faez concluded his statement.