Full bench hearing of Justice Isa case deferred over ‘non-availability’ of judge


–Court order states Justice Miankhel has proceeded on leave to his hometown following a death in the family; court to resume hearing on Oct 28

–Lawyers say they ‘cannot see justice being delivered’ in presidential references against SC judge

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court’s (SC) full bench hearing of a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa has been deferred till October 28 as one of the judges has proceeded on leave to his hometown following a death in the family.

“One of the members of this bench, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, has had a demise in his family and is not available today for hearing of the part-heard constitutional petition,” stated a court order issued in this regard.

“In these circumstances, hearing of the said petition cannot continue today. However, we are informed that Justice Miankhel shall resume his duties next week. Accordingly, the said petition along with connected matters is adjourned to October 28,” the court order added.

Earlier in the day, the 10-member full bench was dissolved after one of the judges became “unavailable”.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who was heading the bench, had said that the judges congregated that the bench had been dissolved due to the non-availability of Justice Miankhel.

“The matter of constituting a new bench is being sent to the chief justice,” Justice Bandial said.

Justice Isa’s counsel, Munir A Malik, requested again that a full court bench be formed to hear the case, to which Justice Bandial reminded him that it is up to the chief justice to constitute a bench however he sees fit.

This would have been the second time that the chief justice would have been requested to reconstitute the bench hearing the petitions regarding presidential references against Justice Isa.

Initially, a seven-member bench was constituted to hear the petitions but, following the recusal of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, a request had been sent to the chief justice to reconstitute a bench to hear the case. The top judge had then constituted the current 10-member bench.


Meanwhile, members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) expressed reservations over the development, saying that they “cannot see justice being delivered”.

Talking to the media after the court’s proceedings, PBC lawyers said that the bench had been dissolved because of the absence of one judge. They added that there was no ground to reconstitute the bench as, according to a Supreme Court order, a bench that begins hearing a petition is supposed to hear the entire case.

They said that all petitioners were present in the court and no one had expressed reservations over the current bench. The lawyers announced that they will raise objections over the bench that will be constituted next.

“[We] don’t understand the urgency [being shown] in this case,” senior lawyer Ali Ahmed Kurd said outside the court.

Another senior lawyer, Hamid Khan, said the proceedings can wait if a judge is unavailable. He added that the 10-member bench had already been formed and the chief justice “does not have the authority” to constitute another bench.

“If this happens, it will be an unconstitutional step,” Khan said.

Talking to reports, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association Rasheed Rizvi said: “From the first day, it seems like these judges cannot wait to pass a verdict within two hours. Do they want to issue a verdict before someone’s retirement?

“There is a judgement [which says] that once a bench is formed, it cannot be dissolved. The conduct of these judges clearly shows that there will be no justice,” he accused.

PBC Vice President Amjad Ali Shah said that all petitioners who have filed appeals in connection with the presidential references against Justice Isa were present in court today for the hearing, yet the bench was dissolved due to the absence of one judge.

“We will have objections to any other bench except this one,” he declared. “We want this bench to hear the case. [It] has [already] held two hearings,” he said.