In a recent decision, the Practice and Procedure Committee of the Supreme Court has opted to schedule the review petitions for hearings after the summer vacation. This decision was reached by a two-to-one majority, with the minutes of the 17th meeting of the Practice and Procedure Committee, held on July 18, being made public.
Majority Opinion on Review Petitions
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, who were part of the majority, emphasized that only the 13 judges who heard the original case should hear the review petitions. They pointed out that the detailed decision of the case has yet to be issued, which contributes to the delay in hearing the petitions. The committee resolved that the review petitions would be scheduled after the summer recess, with hearings to commence following the vacation period ending in September.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar noted that the rules provide for judicial holidays, and the new judicial year will begin in the second week of September. He argued that there is no provision within the rules to cancel these holidays if they have been officially announced.
Dissenting Opinion from Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa
Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faiz Isa, expressed a dissenting view in response to the majority’s decision. In his dissenting note, Chief Justice Isa criticized the idea of postponing the review petitions based on judicial holidays, emphasizing that adherence to the constitution and law should take precedence over procedural rules. He argued that ignoring the constitution and legal requirements undermines the judiciary’s role and credibility.
Chief Justice Isa pointed out that the rights of the parties involved should not be compromised, and the delay in addressing the review petitions could render the constitution and law meaningless. He argued that the review of Article 63A cases should be prioritized and scheduled within 10 days, given the availability of relevant judges for this specific matter.
Recommendations and Urgent Cases
In his note, Chief Justice Isa proposed that Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, along with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Yahya Afridi, should be included in the bench for the Article 63A review. He stressed that urgent cases, under the Practice and Procedure Act, should be scheduled for a hearing within 15 days to ensure timely justice.
The ongoing debate within the Supreme Court underscores the tension between procedural adherence and the need for timely resolution of legal matters. The decision to delay review petitions until after the summer vacation reflects the committee’s adherence to established procedures, while the dissenting opinion highlights the importance of addressing constitutional and urgent legal issues without undue delay.
