ISLAMABAD: The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)’s counsel said review petitions filed under Article 185 of the Constitution should be heard by a regular bench till the Rules for the constitutional benches are framed.
A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
Faisal Siddiqui concluded his arguments and now Hamid Khan, another lawyer of SIC, will start his contention for a live broadcast of the proceedings, and to decide 26th Constitutional Amendment case before the reserved seats case from Wednesday (today).
Faisal argued that once a bench is constituted then a judge cannot be excluded from the bench unless he recuses himself from the bench or there is any legal or constitutional reason for it.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked him to first read Court’s 7th May order, saying all the 13 judges have signed that order, so there remain no confusion, and to avoid bad experience of the past in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections case whether it was 4-3 or 3-4 judges’ order that order was signed by all the 13 judges. He said by the majority of 11-2 the notices were issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan and the respondents.
He said the matter was referred to the committee, constituted under Article 191A of the constitution, to form a new bench.
On the other hand, the two judges, who dissented, did not incline to issue notices to the respondents and decided to recuse themselves from the bench, said Justice Mazhar, and added when they do not want to sit; therefore, the bench was reconstituted.
He inquired from Faisal that if those judges are included in the bench then what questions will they ask?
Justice Mazhar further asked whether the two judges would review their decision. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned; “Whether we also have to review our order.”
He asked the SIC counsel to cite the laws that after the recusal those judges again be included in the bench.
Faisal Siddiqui referred the SC judgment on reference, filed by the government against ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, to reconstitute the bench. He also cited a note of Justice Qazi Faez, which says that a judge can’t be excluded from the bench, despite the fact she/he has passed an order.”
Justice Hilali asked Faisal; “Why are you insisting that we agree with you.”
Justice Amin said the two judges had participated in the hearing conducted on May 6 and after hearing the arguments of the PML-N, PPP and ECP lawyers recused from the bench, and the bench was reconstituted on their wish. Justice Musarrat Hilali said that the judges have touched the facts and law of the case and ruled on review petitions in detailed.
Justice Mazhar said as the two judges have dismissed the review petitions; therefore, their votes would be counted in the final order, though they say their votes should not be counted. He asked from Faisal to tell how to bring back those judges, and whether they would sit in the bench.
Justice Hilali said if one of the judges has gone abroad, then include another two judges in the bench. She asked the counsel to give a ticket so she could bring one of the members from abroad.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar questioned; why no one has filed a review on 6th May order.”
Faisal Siddiqui argued that the fundamental principle is that there has to be express recusal, which is not in the present case. He also cited the judgments in the case of Judges Pension, Panama and review petition against Article 63A verdict.
He also referred to Order XXVI Rule VIII of Supreme Court Rules that the same bench which has delivered the judgment should hear the review petitions. He said that the author judge is also not included in the bench.
Justice Mazhar then asked him whether the procedure provided in the SC Rules would be applicable after the 26th Amendment. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the Rules are applicable to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and whether the JCP was bound by the Rules to choose the members of the constitutional bench.
Faisal Siddiqui said except for a few minor changes nothing has changed in the Supreme Court after the 26th Amendment. Upon that Justice Jamal questioned whether this bench is not unconstitutional. Faisal replied, “it is not.”
The hearing is adjourned until Wednesday (today).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025