Seven-member SC bench resumes hearing pleas challenging military courts

ISLAMABAD: A newly formed seven-member Supreme Court bench has resumed hearing identical petitions challenging the trial of civilians in military courts following the dissolution of a nine-member bench after Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood raised objections and recused themselves from the larger bench.

Earlier, a nnine-member Supreme Court bench was dissolved after Justice Qazi Faiz Isa recused himself from the bench seized with hearing pleas challenging the trial of civilians in military courts.

When the nine-member bench headed by by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial sit to hear the petitions challenging the constitutionality of trying civilians in military courts, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, who was part of the bench, refused to be part of the hearing.

Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi were part of the larger bench.

Former Chief Justice Jawad S Khawaja, senior advocate Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali and Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan have filed the petitions, seeking to declare the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.

As the hearing commenced, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa sought the attention of the Attorney General, and said that Article 175/2 of the Constitution grants this court the authority to hear cases. Expressing his surprise, he said, “Yesterday, at 8 pm, my name appeared on the cause list. However, I will not speak on the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill.”

Justice Qazi Faiz Isa emphasized that the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill was not yet in place. He referred to an order issued by a nine-member bench on April 13, wherein the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure until July.

Citing Supreme Court rules, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa stressed that the constitution granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear cases, and judges were bound by their oath to decide in accordance with the constitution and the law. He clarified that he was not a part of the bench formed to discuss the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure and would refrain from making any statements on the matter.

He further highlighted a previous suo motu notice taken up by his bench. Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s decision on the matter had emphasized the need to establish rules under Article 184/3 of the Constitution. To his surprise, he said, on March 31, Ishrat Ali Sahib issued a circular advising to ignore the Supreme Court’s order of March 15. Justice Qazi Faiz Isa questioned the validity of the Supreme Court’s decision. Subsequently, a six-member bench was formed, which affirmed the circular and overturned his previous ruling, he said.

Questioning the composition of the six-member bench, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa wondered why no judge from the main case was included. He revealed that he had written a note regarding the bench, which was later removed from the Supreme Court’s website.

On May 16, when the chief Justice inquired about his preference for chamber work, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa explained that he followed the law regarding the constitution of benches. He expressed his commitment to upholding his oath and stated that his position could not be rejected or suspended. He had submitted a five-page note explaining his stance on chamber work.

The nominated chief justice emphasized the need for transparency, suggesting that the entire matter should be discussed openly in court. However, he expressed concern over the removal of the notes from the website and proceeded to read his response in court.

Justice Qazi Faiz Isa made a humble statement expressing his regrets to his fellow judges. “I want to apologize for bothering the judges, highlighting his desire to address a matter of importance.

Responding to this, Justice Tariq Masood seized the opportunity to emphasize the significance of prioritizing pending requests. “Those requests should be heard first,” Justice Tariq Masood insisted, underscoring the need to give due consideration to the pending cases.

Aitzaz Ahsan advocated for Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s involvement in the particular case, calling it highly consequential. “Justice Qazi Faiz Isa should sit and hear this case,” Aitzaz Ahsan asserted.

Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial intervened, shedding light on the objections raised by two judges concerning the practice and procedure of the case. Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial also pointed out that these judges might not be aware that the Attorney General had requested additional time for this particular case.

Aitzaz Ahsan reiterated his stance that Justice Qazi Faiz Isa should be part of the case.

Following the separation of Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Tariq, a seven-member bench was constituted which is currently hearing the case.