The Supreme Court’s crisis continues as Judge Qazi Faez Isa claims that a six-member bench cannot reverse a previous decision to pause suo motu proceedings.
Recently, this six-member bench decided to “close” the case that led to Judge Isa’s directive to suspend all ongoing suo motu proceedings. The Supreme Court established the larger bench by invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which resulted in the cessation of all suo motu cases by a unique SC bench led by Justice Isa.
Justice Isa had chosen to delay hearings on cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution until amendments were made to the Supreme Court Rules of 1980 concerning the chief justice’s authority to create benches. This decision related to a case involving the allocation of an extra 20 marks to Hafiz-e-Quran pre-medical students for admission into MBBS/BDS programs.
The newly formed bench consisted of Justices Munib Akhtar, Sayyed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha A Malik, and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi. This bench dismissed Justice Isa’s order, but he argued that the bench’s formation was against established norms and could not overrule his bench’s majority ruling in a note released recently.
In his note, Judge Isa stated that the 29 March 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Case No. 4 could not be nullified by the 4 April Notice, as the gathering of six eminent judges was not authorized by the Constitution or any law.
He also emphasized that decisions from a court operating under an autocratic shadow cannot override the Constitution. “The Constitution does not grant authority to a bench or judges of the SC (regardless of their number) to sit in appeal over a decision of the SC,” the senior puisne judge declared in his order.
Judge Isa further argued that the so-called larger bench was inappropriately formed to hear case no. 4 (the suo motu case). The expanded bench, despite its size, could not constitute a (constitutional) court as it lacked the necessary authority.
The judge also mentioned that the alleged ‘order’ dated April 4, 2023, cannot be viewed as a Supreme Court order due to its lack of constitutional or legal relevance. Instead, it should be referred to as the 4 April Notice.
.
