Eight judges set up own virtual court in reserved seats case: CJP Qazi Faez Isa

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa issued another dissenting note in the reserved seats case, maintaining that eight judges ‘deviated’ from how courts have always functioned and formed their ‘separate virtual’ court, ARY News reported.

In his 14-page dissenting note the CJP said that it is his duty to point out the constitutional ‘violations and illegalities’ in the majority’s short order, detailed judgment, and clarifications.

“I do hope and expect that my distinguished colleagues in the majority will reflect and correct their mistakes and ensure that Pakistan is governed in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (‘the Constitution’). Unfortunately, the review petitions against the majority short order could not be heard because my Hon’ble colleagues (Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar) outvoted me on the Committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023,” the dissenting note read.

“The majority of eight judges decided to part ways with the Court, comprising of thirteen judges, which had heard the appeals. The majority set up its own virtual court, permitted the making of an appropriate application by the ECP and PTI, and directed that such appropriate application would only be heard by them whilst cloistered in chambers. In doing this the majority of the Hon’ble Judges effectively legislated, because neither the Constitution nor any law permits what they did,” CJP Qazi Faez Isa read in his dissenting note.

“Incidentally, no party or counsel during the hearing ever suggested the course of action which the majority adopted, and neither the majority’s short order nor the majority’s judgment offers an explanation to justify it. In effectively legislating the Hon’ble Judges in the majority also contradicted themselves. They stated that the ECP and the PTI may apply to the Court but then proceeded to state that only the judges constituting the majority would hear the appropriate application.”

The CJP viewed that the majority ‘disregarded’ the precedents of the court. “They not only carved out a separate eight-member court from the thirteen-member court, but also innovated further by not finally concluding the hearing of the appeals, because they permitted appropriate application to be filed, introduced timelines and changed what the Constitution provided.”

‘Order uploaded on SC website without informing CJP’

“The majority’s short order was announced on 12 July 2024, following which the Hon’ble Judges had to issue their detailed reasons for the same. Instead, something inexplicable happened. A purported ‘order’ was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website on 14 September 2024, and this was done without informing the Chief Justice, the other Judges (in the minority), and bypassing the Registrar and the office of the Supreme Court. And, this was done on a Saturday, after the Registrar had left.”

The dissenting note added, “The majority’s order/clarification was admittedly passed without first listing the cases, without issuing notices to the parties and without Civil Appeal No. 333/2024 etc and issuance of the requisite notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan. The title of the ‘order’ stated – ‘In Chambers’. However, not all of the said eight Hon’ble Judges were in the Supreme Court premises and some were not even in Islamabad. By not issuing notices, not granting an opportunity of hearing, and not conducting the hearing in open Court, the well established rules of natural justice were transgressed, and Article 10A of the Constitution, which gives protection to procedural fairness and has elevated due process and fair trial to the status of a Fundamental Right, was contravened.”