Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge Justice Muneeb Akhtar has written another letter to the Registrar Supreme Court after the 63 A revision hearing on Monday.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa was formed to hear the case related to the revision petitions in the interpretation of Article 63A, but the short hearing was conducted by four judges as Justice Muneeb did not attend.
Justice Munib objected to the issuance of the written order and said in a letter to the Registrar Supreme Court that ‘My name is written in the order but there is no signature. How did the four judges sit and issue the decree?
After the written hearing order came on Monday evening, Justice Muneeb Akhtar wrote another letter to the Supreme Court Registrar.
In which it was said that the Article 63A revision case was scheduled for hearing before a five-member bench, a five-member larger bench was to hear the case, a four-member bench cannot sit in the court and hear the revision case related to Article 63A. , today’s hearing order was sent to me, my name is written in the order, but there is no signature at the front.
He further said that the four judges sitting in the bench are respectable, but today’s hearing is not in accordance with the law and rules. I have explained my position in detail in the earlier letter.
“The order of today’s hearing is not a judicial order, the order of the revision case on the interpretation of Article 63A has no status.”
The written order directed the Registrar Supreme Court to convince Justice Muneeb Akhtar to sit on the bench.
In the order, the registrar was directed to provide a copy of the order to Justice Muneeb Akhtar and request him to join the five-member bench and if Justice Muneeb Akhtar refuses to join the bench, his non-appearance. On participation, the bench will be reconstituted.
According to the order, PTI’s lawyer Ali Zafar Bani is allowed to represent in the case and further hearing of the case is adjourned till 11.30 pm tomorrow.
The interpretation of Article 63A was decided two years ago in May 2022 by a five-member larger bench headed by then Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial. That decision was three to two.
Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, who were part of the bench, disagreed with the majority decision, while former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar decided not to count the defected member’s vote and disqualify him. was
The majority judgment on the interpretation of Article 63A was written by Justice Muneeb Akhtar.
When the hearing of petitions related to the interpretation of Article 63A began on Monday, four out of five judges were present in courtroom number one, while bench member Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s chair remained empty.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar wrote a letter to the Registrar Supreme Court explaining the reasons for his absence. Which was read out by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa. The Chief Justice read the last lines of Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s letter in the courtroom.
Chief Justice said that ‘Justice Muneeb Akhtar heard the cases today, he was also present in the tea room. It was his choice not to attend today’s hearing.
We will hear this revision case again tomorrow. Hope Justice Muneeb Akhtar joins the hearing tomorrow.
This section contains related reference points (Related Nodes field).
Justice Muneeb Akhtar will be requested that the matter is pending for two years and hence she should come to the bench. We will try to convince Justice Muneeb Akhtar otherwise the bench will be reconstituted.’
The Chief Justice further said that if Justice Muneeb Akhtar had something to say, he could have said it sitting in the bench. Apologies can only be made in open court after the bench is constituted.
‘I have always encouraged dissent. In the letter he wrote, he did not even address the bench, but he addressed the registrar.
In his letter written this morning, Justice Muneeb Akhtar had said that ‘I will not sit in the bench due to the objection to the committee, the correct law was not applied in the formation of the bench.
“I am not apologizing for hearing the case, but the committee which has constituted the bench of the Practice and Procedure Committee cannot be a part of the bench constituted by the committee. Do not misunderstand the fact that I did not join the bench. be made part of the record.’
#judges #issued #writ #orders #letter #Justice #Munib
2024-10-01 07:10:44
