ISLAMABAD (WS News) – Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan has replaced Justice Munib Akhtar on the bench hearing review petitions related to Article 63-A today (Tuesday).
The hearing of the case began at 11:30am. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa heads the bench.
Justices Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Mandokhail and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel are also part of the bench.
Senior judge Justice Munib Akhtar a day earlier (Monday) recused himself from the case stating that his withdrawal should not be interpreted as a refusal to hear the case.
The hearing was postponed in the absence of Justice Akhtar who communicated his withdrawal through two letters to the Supreme Court Registrar.
A meeting of the Practice and Procedure Committee was held on Tuesday morning and decided to have Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan on the bench in place of Justice Munib Akhtar.
MONDAY’S PROCEEDINGS
A hearing on the review case related to the interpretation of Article 63-A was held in the Supreme Court on Monday, with a formal written order also issued.
Justice Munib Akhtar, in his second letter to the registrar, described hearing order as illegal. He stated that a five-member larger bench was supposed to hear the case, and a four-member bench could not hear the review case related to Article 63-A.
Justice Akhtar stated that the order of Monday’s hearing was sent to him, with his name mentioned but without his signature. He added that the four judges on the bench are respectable, but today’s (Monday) hearing was not in accordance with the law and rules.
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 the hearing order.
He said the order was not a judicial order, and had 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 appeared to be contrary to Article 182.
Justice Akhtar’s letter recalled that the 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 had now been abandoned and the CJP himself assumed the command of the review petition, he said.
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 63-A.
