Supreme Court (SC) Judges Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar said that the review petitions on reserved seats case can only be heard by the same 13-member bench that pronounced its verdict.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa wanted to fix the review pleas urgently but the two senior judges opposed his proposal.
The 17th meeting of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Committee-which decides the formation of benches-was held on Thursday and according to its minutes, the CJP was in favour of fixing the pleas urgently but Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar disagreed with him. Consequently, the three-member committee decided to fix the pleas after summer vacations with a majority of 2-1. The minutes read that the secretary pointed out that two urgency applications were also filed with the review pleas.
Senior Puisne Judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar said that under the SC rules, the review petitions can only be fixed before the same 13-member bench that heard the matter originally.
The two judges viewed that the SC is passing through summer vacation and most of the judges are on holiday or out of the country.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar maintained that it would be appropriate if the matter is fixed after the summer vacations when all the 13 judges who heard the appeals are available at the Principal Seat.
The two senior judges also pointed out that the review petitions are not fixed until detailed judgment is released by the bench. “In this case, the detailed judgment is still awaited,” Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar added. Meanwhile, the CJP urged that the right of review is provided under the Constitution and such right has to be preferred over the judges’ convenience. Justice Qazi Faez Isa said that the judges had taken oath to abide by the Constitution, it would be unjust and unfair if the review petitions were not fixed urgently. The CJP stressed that the order under review necessitated re-opening of the Court even if it required the cancellation of vacations.
