23/01/2024
ISLAMABAD: The Attorney General for Pakistan informed the Supreme Court that the federal government is contemplating filing an appeal against the SC judgment in Sherbano case, declaring after the retirement or resignation of a judge the proceeding before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) abate.
The SJC, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, who is also Chairman of the SJC, and comprises two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court – Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, and – Lahore High Court Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti and Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Afghan, on Friday, heard the complaints against former SC judge, Justice (retired) Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.
Advocate Dr Yasir Aman Khan, an associate of Khawaja Haris, informed: “Khawaja Sb is on his way from Lahore to Islamabad.” Khawaja Haris has reached Bhera and requested to hear the case at 02:30 pm.
Resignation accepted: SJC issues ‘intimation notice’ to former judge
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, in June 2023, had passed the judgment in Afia Sherbano case. He submitted that though the facts have not been mentioned in the judgment but the complaint in SJC was filed against ex-CJP Saqib Nisar.
He informed that the complaint was not attended till his (ex-CJP Saqib’s) retirement and the complainant wanted to know about the fate of his petition, which was filed in 2020, but decided in June 2023. At that relevant time, Justice Saqib Nisar had retired.
The AGP also informed that the SC Division Bench overlooked that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 which was enacted on 21st April, 2023.
He contended that the Supreme Court’s larger bench has given judgment in favour of the SC Practice and Procedure Act.
He submitted that as per the Act, a constitutional petition filed before the Supreme Court must be placed before a Committee first, which decides about the constitution of benches.
He stated that the petition must have been heard by a five-judge bench, because the interpretation of constitutional provision was required, adding the petition was dismissed in limine.
