Justice Munib skips SC bench hearing review plea in defection clause verdict

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa on Monday adjourned the hearing of a review petition challenging its ruling on the defection clause under Article 63-A of the Constitution after Justice Munib Akhtar’s unavailability.

Headed by CJP Isa, the five-member bench originally comprised Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Munib. However, as the hearing began on Monday, Justice Munib was unavailable from the bench, following which the CJP adjourned the hearing till Tuesday (today), saying that the judge would be requested to rejoin the bench.

“We will try to bring Justice Munib Akhtar back to the bench, otherwise, the bench will be reconstituted,” said the chief justice. In his letter, Justice Munib stated he did not recuse from the bench, saying he cannot be a part of a bench that was constituted by Practice and Procedure Committee.

“My letter should be made a part of the case record,” said Justice Munib, to which CJP Isa said this could not happen. He added it would have been appropriate had Justice Munib given his opinion after being part of the bench.

The CJP said he respects Justice Munib’s opinion, however, the case had been pending for more than two years and the Article 63-A case was very important.In his letter, Justice Munib noted that the “matter of fixing a bench for the CRP appeared suddenly on the committee’s agenda at its 17th meeting held on July 18, it seems for the first time even though the committee has been meeting since before July 17”.

“I may also note that the bench now constitutedincludes Justice (R) Mazhar Alam Miankhel, who currently attends sittings of the Court as an ad hoc judge in terms of Article 182. The reasons why it was considered necessary to so request Justice Miankhel (and another retired Judge) are set out in the minutes of the meeting of the JCP held on 19.07.2024.

“Within the framework so provided, the committee (via exchange of messages on its WhatsApp group on 27-28.072C24) established the parameters for the work to be assigned to the ad hoc Judge. It is true that Justice Mazhar was a member of the bench that gave the judgment (by majority) that is now under review in the CRP. However, in the present context, his presence at the Court is a happenstance. It is commonplace for review petitions to be heard after the judges who gave the judgment sought to be reviewed have retired. Therefore, with respect, his Inclusion in the bench to hear the CRP appears to be contrary to Article 182,” wrote Justice Munib.

He requested the matter to be taken into account on the overall circumstances pertaining to the particular bench formed by the reconstituted committee.“On such assessment I must express my inability, at the present time, to be part of the bench constituted to hear the CRP. It may be noted that this is not a recusal and my present inability should not be misconstrued or misrepresented as such. Please ensure that this note is placed on the file of the CRP so as to become Part of its record,” he stated.