ISLAMABAD – Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Wednesday rejected the PTI’s objection to the formation of a bench hearing review petition of the Article 63-A.
According to media reports, the Supreme Court heard the review petition against the interpretation of Article 63-A. The hearing was conducted by a five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, which included Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Mazhar Alam.
PTI’s lawyer, Barrister Gohar, along with other representatives, PPP’s lawyer Farooq H. Naek, the Additional Attorney General, and others were present in court.
Supreme Court Bar President Shehzad Shaukat continued his arguments from the previous day. During the hearing, the Registrar’s report regarding the detailed decision on Article 63A was presented, stating that the detailed decision was issued on October 14, 2022.
Shehzad Shaukat explained that the review was delayed due to the wait for the detailed decision.
Justice Jamal questioned if the Supreme Court Bar was unaware of the deadline for filing a review, noting it would be different if this were an ordinary person’s case.
Shehzad Shaukat stated that delays in public interest cases can be overlooked and such cases can also be scheduled sooner, adding that the review had not been scheduled for a hearing for two years.
Barrister Ali Zafar, lawyer for PTI founder Imran Khan, said the review was filed late, which is why it wasn’t scheduled. He requested permission to make a statement.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa responded that the court listens to submissions, not statements, and suggested he make statements in the neighboring parliament building. He also questioned whether the review is against the decision itself or its reasons.
Barrister Ali Zafar commented that yesterday’s arguments were “very sweet,” to which the Chief Justice replied that today’s arguments would be even sweeter.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if Ali Zafar enjoyed yesterday’s arguments, and Justice Naeem Afghan added that a mix of sweet and bitter makes the flavor.
Ali Zafar continued, stating he would give “bitter” arguments today, and mentioned that his application was not accepted by the Supreme Court office.
The Chief Justice asked for details of the application, noting that it must have been filed in the morning.
Ali Zafar requested time for arguments, explaining that he needed to consult with PTI founder Imran Khan, who is a former prime minister and petitioner, and understands the constitution. He sought permission to consult with Imran Khan on the matter.
Chief Justice Isa instructed him to start his arguments, to which Ali Zafar asked if his request to meet the PTI founder was being rejected. Justice Naeem Afghan pointed out that he could have met with him the previous day, and Ali Zafar replied that he was in jail.
Chief Justice instructed Barrister Ali Zafar to continue his arguments. Ali Zafar claimed that no notice was given in this case and called the court’s method illegal, mentioning that everyone was called together in one day to declare who supported the review.
Ali Zafar demanded that it be decided whether the bench was legal before he would provide his arguments.
Chief Justice rejected the objection to the bench’s formation, saying that a decision had been made, and they all unanimously dismissed the objection.
Barrister Ali Zafar questioned how the members of the bench-forming committee, who were themselves part of the bench, could deem the bench formation legal.
