ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court will hear review petitions against the SC judgment on Presidential Reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa from April 13th.
A 10-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, and Justice Aminud Din Khan will hear review petitions filed by Justice Faez, Sarina Isa, the Pakistan Bar Council, the Supreme Court Bar Association, and provincial bar councils and associations.
The larger bench on March 13 reserved judgment on Justice Faez Isa's application for live transmission of the proceedings of his review petition.
President Arif Alvi had filed a reference against Justice Faez.
It was alleged by the federal government that Justice Qazi Faez had acquired three properties in London in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015 but did not disclose them in his wealth returns.
Justice Isa contested the allegation, saying he was not a beneficial owner of the flats - either directly or indirectly.
In June 2020, the Supreme Court threw out the reference terming it "invalid".
However, seven of the 10 judges ordered the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to seek explanations from the judge's wife and children on the nature and source of funding for three properties in their names in the United Kingdom and submit a report to the SC registrar.
Justice Maqbool Baqar and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, members of the larger bench, disagreed with the majority judgment and wrote separate notes.
Justice Maqbool Baqar wrote: "I found that the allegations against the petitioner (Justice Qazi Faez) were wholly unfounded, baseless, frivolous, misconceived and mala fide, and the petitioner was right in claiming the purported Reference to be a product of animosity, malice of law as well as of facts and that it streams from the ill-will harbored by some functionaries of the executive against the petitioner."
"Despite commissioning the entire government machinery, to somehow ferret some excuse to proceed to dislodge the petitioner, and misusing the government departments, and resources, in unconstitutional and unlawful manner, in that pursuit, including covertly surveilling the petitioner, and his family, the official respondents have neither been able to show any illegality or misconduct on the part of the petitioner, nor that the wife and children of the petitioner are his dependents," he further stated.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021