Justice Isa objects to larger bench verdict recalling suo motu interim order

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court (SC) Judge Justice Justice Qazi Faez Isa has raised objections on the six-member larger bench verdict, recalling interim order wherein he and Justice Aminuddin Khan ordered the postponement of all suo motu cases, ARY News reported on Saturday.

A special SC bench led by Justice Isa ordered suspending all suo motu cases — under Article 184(3) of the Constitution — until amendments were made to the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) to form benches.

The special bench order came while hearing a case pertaining to the 2018 regulation of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) that suggested an award of 20 additional marks to candidates for memorising the Holy Quran by heart to get MBBS or BDS degrees.

However, the apex court constituted a six-member larger bench to review the decision of special SC bench, led by Justice Isa, which ordered the shelving of all suo motu cases.

Later on April 4, the larger bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, recalled the interim order authored by Justice Isa.

In the hearing that lasted a total of five minutes, the bench disposed of the case on account of it being “ineffective”.

In a detailed note issued today (Saturday) through the Supreme Court website – which is now taken off, Justice Isa said that the larger bench was “wrongly constituted” and did not have constitutional jurisdiction to override the March 29 interim order.

“Since the gathering in a court of six distinguished judges was not permissible under the Constitution or under any law, the Supreme Court’s order dated 29 March 2023 passed in Case No. 4 could not have been set aside by the 4 April Note,” the judge said.

He further stated, “Decisions emanating from a courtroom overcast with the shadow of autocracy cannot displace the Constitution.”

Justice Isa said that the six-member bench could not review the Mar 29 order and if review jurisdiction was invoked then the case should have been listed for hearing before the same initial three-member bench.

He pointed out that the six judges were “hurriedly assembled” and the judge heading the bench and the next senior judge had “concluded the matter within a few minutes”.

The SC judge also noted that the CJP has been designated as the ‘Master of Rolls’, which he mentioned was a term not found in the Constitution, in any law or even in the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

“The stated rule of law was not enacted pursuant to a law nor can it by its own self-serve itself to be categorised as rule of law, particularly when it contravenes the Constitution, which does not grant to the Chief Justice such powers,” the judge mentioned.

Justice Isa also stated that “irreparable damage will be caused to the Judiciary and to the people of Pakistan if the legitimacy, integrity and credibility of the Judiciary is undermined because without it the people (who it serves) will lose their trust.”