Justice Munib writes another letter to registrar in 63-A interpretation case

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court (SC) Justice Munib Akhtar wrote another letter to the registrar, expressing concerns over the four-member bench hearing the Article 63-A interpretation review plea despite his absence.

Justice Munib Akhtar in his another letter questioned the legitimacy of the four-judge bench that heared the case.

“The Article 63-A review case was fixed for hearing before a five-member bench but heard by four judges instead,” the letter read.

The SC judge maintained that the written order of Monday’s hearing was sent to him having the signatures of four judges. He said that his name was also mentioned in the order but not signed.

“The four judges who heard the case are honourable but today’s hearing is not according to law and rules,” he said in a letter.

Justice Munib Akhtar said that he wanted to register his protest against Monday’s hearing written order.

“Today’s hearing order is not a judicial order and has no legal standing,” he added.

Earlier, Justice Munib Akhtar withdrew from the bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, hearing the Article 63-A review plea.

The five-member larger bench comprised of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Munib Akhtar, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel was set to hear the case, but Justice Munib Akhtar withdrew himself from the bench.

Read More: SC forms bench to hear Article 63-A interpretation review plea

Justice Munib wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, citing his reasons for not being part of the bench. The letter also mentioned his reservations about the reconstitution of the Practicing and Procedure Committee.

A four-member bench, excluding Justice Munib, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case instead.

SCBA review petition

In 2022, the Supreme Court Bar filed petition in the apex court seeking review of the court’s opinion in the Presidential Reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A.

The Bar requested to the court to review the paragraph of its opinion in the presidential reference, with regard to not counting the vote of the dissenting members and take back that opinion. ” Not counting the defecting members vote is against the spirit of the constitution,” the SC Bar petitioned. “The Supreme Court’s opinion has been equal to an intervention in the constitution,” according to the petition.

“According to the Article 63-A, defecting members can only be de-seated,” SC Bar said in its petition.

The federal government and the election commission has been made parties in the case.

The Supreme Court in its interpretation of Article 63-A, on May 17, declared that defecting members votes will not be counted in the Parliament.

It was a split decision with 3-2 majority, made by five-member bench of the apex court headed by the then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial. The Chief Justice said that changing loyalties in the parliament damages the integrity of democracy.