SC adjourns Article 63A revision plea hearing amid heated exchanges

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan adjourned the hearing on Article 63A revision petitions until tomorrow after a fiery session marked by sharp exchanges between Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and lawyers representing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

The hearing witnessed several developments, including Chief Justice Isa granting PTI’s counsel, Barrister Ali Zafar, permission to meet with former PTI chairman Imran Khan. This meeting was facilitated by an order from the Additional Advocate General of Punjab, though it sparked debate in the court. Chief Justice Isa made it clear that if Zafar faced any further difficulties, he should approach the Attorney General.

Article 63A review plea: SC delves on vote counting and no-confidence motion

It is notable here that yesterday Barrister Ali Zafar had asked for permission to meet the former PTI chief, to which CJ Isa had said that what if Imran Khan refuses to accept the court’s verdict, would Barrister Zafar choose to act on that.

During the proceedings today, the court reviewed a report concerning the registrar’s decision related to Article 63A, which had been issued on October 14, 2022. Barrister Zafar argued that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to the pending release of the detailed verdict.

He also highlighted that had it been any other case, it might have progressed differently, a sentiment echoed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.

Throughout the session, both Justices Isa and Mandokhail engaged in pointed dialogue with Zafar. At one point, Chief Justice Isa inquired if the revision petition was contesting the decision itself or the reasoning behind it. Zafar requested more time to consult with PTI’s former chairman before presenting his full arguments. However, Chief Justice Isa reminded him that time had been available earlier, emphasising that transparency was necessary in court procedures.

SC begins Article 63A hearing; PTI’s counsel objects to bench once again

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that today’s arguments would be “sweeter than yesterday’s,” prompting Zafar to promise more “bitter” arguments ahead. The session took an even sharper turn when Zafar, once again, expressed concern about the composition of the bench, claiming it was not constituted in line with legal procedures outlined in the law.

At this point, Chief Justice Isa said, “We have decided to reject your request,” and asserting that the bench was valid under the law. The CJ also criticised the notion that judges were chosen for benches based on preference, declaring that the era of such practices had ended, and a new age of transparency had begun.

Despite the heated exchanges, Ali Zafar continued his arguments, voicing concerns over the amendment ordinance and the process of bench formation, reiterating that benches should be constituted by a three-member committee, as mandated by law. Chief Justice Isa responded to each objection, asking Zafar to read relevant documents carefully, and expressing frustration at attempts to “embarrass” the judges.

There was also a time when Barrister Zafar and another PTI lawyer got into confrontation. Lawyer Mustafin Kazmi raised objections against Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Mazhar Alam. Chief Justice Isa responded sternly to the behaviour, stating, “We will never tolerate this,” while Zafar apologised for Kazmi’s conduct.

Article 63A case: Justice Naeem Akhtar appointed to complete bench

Throughout the session, references to political figures like Imran Khan and former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar were made. The bench also heard Justice Jamal Mandokhail recount a conversation with a relative who suggested the Supreme Court was “ruined” by recent events.

Chief Justice Isa, on the other hand, stressed the importance of transparency and the role of the judiciary in upholding Pakistan’s democratic values, vowing to prevent the return of past dictatorial practices.

As the session closed, the Chief Justice reminded the court that revision petitions were meant to be based on merit, a point Zafar had yet to address fully.

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.