Review petitions: Judgements are rendered in accordance with law, counsel told

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday was urged to keep in mind public perception regarding composition of the bench that will hear the review petitions on a presidential reference.

A six-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the review petitions against the apex court judgment on the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

Rasheed A Rizvi, who is representing the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalist (PFUJ) and Sindh Bar Association, argued that it has been an old practice that the same number of judges hears the review petition, who have heard the main petition.

Referring to the All Indian Court judgment in 1923, he said not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. He said in the bars there was a public perception that a 10-member bench should hear the case.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said: "I feel sorry that a senior counsel is talking about public perception instead of [the] law," adding it is the duty of the bars to explain the law to the public as they will render judgments in accordance with law, and not on the basis of public perceptions.

Rizvi said what harm will there be if nine judges hear the review petitions. Justice Bandial asked the counsel that "you think they (seven-member of bench) cannot decide or do justice or you want judges of your own choice. We all are also judges of the Supreme Court."

The public perception has to be addressed by "you" (lawyers' leaders), as they (judges) cannot address the public.

"We have to act in accordance with the law. Justice will be done by the grace of Almighty," he added.

Justice Bandial said the chief justice had constituted a seven-member bench, but as Justice Faisal had retired, therefore, six judges were hearing the matter. He said they understood the logic, but it was the requirement of the law that the judges, who had passed the unanimous judgment, heard the review petitions.

Justice Bandial said when a 10-member bench heard the petition against the presidential reference, the petitioner (Justice Qazi) had raised objection on the inclusion of the two judges, who showed grace and recused themselves from the 10-member bench.

This is the constitutional court and it is not our job to hear the petition against the presidential reference, but we heard the petition, filed under Article 184(3) of Constitution, in order to create balance, Justice Bandial said.

"You have to show solidarity with the institution," he asked the counsel.

Rasheed A Rizvi said he had always supported the independence of judiciary and stood with the institution. He said the bars had a legitimate concern as a judge of the apex court was involved in the instant matter.

Munir A Malik, who is representing Justice Qazi Faez Isa, said the majority judgment was the judgment of the court. He referred to the apex court's judgments in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Malik Asad Ali, and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah cases, saying the review petitions were heard by same benches that heard the main petitions.

He said it would be appropriate it the review petition in the instant matter was heard by the same bench, which heard the petitions against the presidential reference. Hamid Khan, who is appearing on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), adopted the arguments of Munir Malik.

He said that in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) case, the judges who dissented were not excluded from the bench, which heard the review petition of ZAB.

Sarina Isa, wife of Justice Qazi Faez, said that she and her children were "punished" without being heard.

She also requested the bench that a 10-member bench should hear the review petitions.

The judges who wrote separate notes and dissented with the main judgment should also be included in the bench, she added. She urged the court to order uploading of income tax returns of all the judges, generals, and politicians' wives and children.

President SCBA Latif Afridi sought some time to argue on the composition of the bench. The bench accepting his plea, adjourned the matter until tomorrow (Thursday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020