Justice Rizvi writes additional note in NAB amendments case

ISLAMABAD: Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi of the Supreme Court has issued his additional note in the judgment of the intra-court appeals filed by the federal government against the decision to invalidate the NAB amendments.

“I have carefully read the majority judgment authored by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and although I agree with the conclusion he reached, I regretfully find myself unable to endorse the reasoning,” Justice Rizvi noted in his 22-page additional note.

The judge noted that the majority judgment did not provide sufficient justification for the issues at hand adding that unreasonable remarks were made about the former judges of this court, whose judgment we are reviewing on appeal.

“In my humble opinion, judicial comity requires that, even when we disagree with the decisions of other judges, we do so with respect and constructiveness,” the judge held adding that criticism should focus on legal principles rather than disparaging those who authored the original decision. “While I concur with the ultimate conclusion, I feel compelled to offer my own reasoning in a manner that aligns with the respect and decorum expected within our judiciary hierarchy,” the judge held.

The judge said the purpose of the I.C.A. was to provide a remedy for reconsideration when a party was dissatisfied with the decision of a single judge or a smaller bench, without requiring escalation to another tier of the judicial hierarchy. “This ensures that errors or inconsistencies in legal judgments are reviewed within the same court, promoting fairness and thoroughness in judicial decision-making,” the judge held.

The judge noted that Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi (‘the respondent’) filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging the validity of the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 (‘First Amendment’) and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022 (‘Second Amendment’), collectively referred to as the ‘2022 Amendments’ on the touchstone of the Fundamental rights as enshrined in Chapter 1 of the Constitution. The judge said the petition was fixed before a three-member bench (‘Original Bench’) of this Court. During the hearing, the Original Bench, in paragraph 24 of the impugned majority judgment, limited the scope of the case by observing that although the respondent sought the nullification of nearly all the 2022 amendments, it was not convinced that every section of those amendments violated the Fundamental Rights of the people of Pakistan. “The Original Bench concluded that prima facie judicial scrutiny was required only for sections 2, 8, 10, and 14 of the First Amendment and sections 2, 3, and 14 of the Second Amendment,” the judge held

Justice Rizvi held that an I.C.A. was not an appeal against the decision of a subordinate court. Moreover, Article XI of the Code of Conduct must be more strictly adhered to when a judge of a Superior Court expresses dissent or disagreement with the view of another judge of the same Court, as judges of Superior Courts, including the Chief Justice, are equal.

“It is therefore desirable that dissent and disagreement never take the form of comments akin to those of an appellate forum but should always be expressed with courtesy and restraint,” the judge held adding that dissent and disagreement should remain confined to matters of law and, under no circumstances, extend to the conduct or personality of another judge.