A hearing regarding the review of the interpretation of Article 63-A took place in the Supreme Court on Monday, accompanied by a formal written order.
In his second letter to the registrar, Justice Munib Akhtar labeled the hearing order as unlawful. He emphasized that the case was intended to be heard by a five-member larger bench, asserting that a four-member bench should not handle the review concerning Article 63-A.
Justice Akhtar pointed out that the order for today’s hearing was sent to him, featuring his name but lacking his signature. He acknowledged the respectability of the four judges on the bench but asserted that today’s hearing did not adhere to the law and established procedures.
According to Justice Munib’s letter, he had already expressed his stance in detail in the first letter and wanted to record his protest regarding today’s hearing order. He said that the order is not a judicial order, and has no standing in the review case related to the interpretation of Article 63-A.
Earlier, the Supreme Court held a hearing on the review case of the Article 63-A decision. Justice Akhtar, part of the five-member bench, did not join the bench. Instead, he wrote a letter to the CJP questioning the presence of ad hoc judge, Justice Miankhel, in the bench, saying his inclusion appears to be contrary to Article 182.
Justice Akhtar’s letter recalled that CJP (while in minority on the three-member committee) had proposed a five-member bench, to be headed by senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah to hear the present case. That proposal has now been abandoned and CJP has himself assumed the command of the review petition.
It may be recalled that the SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association) sought a review of the May 17, 2022 ruling of a five-member bench on the defection clause under Article 63A.
The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of Article 63 A revision case till Tuesday as Justice Munib Akhtar refused to join the larger bench.
Source: Dunya News