Article 63-A: SC adjourns hearing till Friday

The Supreme Court (SC) adjourned on Thursday the hearing on pleas filed by the government and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) till Friday (tomorrow), Aaj News reported.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan is hearing the presidential reference filed by the government as well as the SCBA's plea.

Ahead of the hearing, two of the opposition parties and the SCBA submitted their replies before the apex court. The government also submitted its reply, it was reported.

Article 63-A: SC decides to form larger bench

During the last hearing, the top court decided to form a larger bench to hear the presidential reference filed by the government

President Dr Arif Alvi on Monday had filed the reference under Article 186 of the Constitution through Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law of public importance.

The court has been prayed to answer the questions of law, so as to purify and strengthen the democratic process worthy of people’s respect and trust and forever eradicate the menace of defections. Four questions of law have been framed in the Reference.

The SC written order stated that the two matters (SCBA petition and Reference) would be heard together. “For this purpose notice is issued to the petitioner SCBA. Notices are also issued in relation to the Reference to the political parties, who are before us in terms of our previous order”.

Formation of larger SC bench: Justice Isa expresses his reservations

Following this, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, senior puisne judge of the SC, strongly objected to not including the most senior judges in the larger bench for hearing the presidential reference.

Justice Faez in a three-page letter, written to Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, sheds light on ‘unfairness’ in the Supreme Court’s internal judicial/ administrative matters. The senior puisne judge raised serious questions over the composition of a larger bench to hear presidential reference.

His letter said, the composition of the five-judge bench consisted of judges who were 4th, 8th, and 13th in the seniority list of the court. This has been done by discarding the good practice of structuring the CJP’s discretion by predecessors of constituting benches consisting of senior most judges when cases involved important constitutional questions.