CJP Isa, Hamid clash in courtroom
Supreme Court dismissed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s plea on the matter of its internal polls after the party refused to proceed with the case in the light of the 26th Constitutional Amendment on Monday.
A three-member bench, headed by CJP Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, was hearing the PTI’s plea to review its judgement on its intra-party election.
During the hearing, PTI’s lawyer Hamid Khan filed a petition for the formation of a larger bench to hear the review petition.
Upon being asked about the reason for this request, the lawyer suggested the court see a past verdict by a 13-member bench in a Sunni Ittehad Council vs Election Commission of Pakistan case.
At this, CJP Isa objected that it was a different case. He asked why didn’t PTI want to give the arguments. “Say what you want to say in my face instead of saying it on the television behind my back,” the top judge remarked.
Responding to the remark, the PTI lawyer said that he cannot present the arguments against “an extremely biased person”. CJP Isa remarked that the petition being heard did not mention this aspect.
Meanwhile, Justice Hilali asked Hamid to tell why he was calling the existing bench biased. After the exchange of remarks between the lawyer and CJP, PTI leader Ali Zafar maintained that the party will not present the arguments before this bench. “This bench can no longer hear this case,” he said while referring to the judicial amendments.
At this, CJP Isa remarked that he doesn’t know about “any such amendment” as the matter has not been brought to his notice.
“Don’t tell us what we can hear and what not,” the top judge stated.
It may be noted that the constitutional changes had not yet been signed into law at this point of the hearing and, hence, did not apply to the Supreme Court or any bench of the court.
Hamid said that they have requested the formation of a larger bench to hear this matter, but CJP Isa objected to the request, saying that a larger bench cannot be constituted for a review petition.
At this, the lawyer cited the majority verdict by SC’s 8-member bench in the reserved seats case as an example. However, the chief justice remarked that the case he is referring to has a review petition pending in the court. “We won’t remark on a case in which a review petition remains pending,” he stated.
