Govt terms majority order in review case of Justice Isa unconstitutional

ISLAMABAD: The federal government has termed the order of the majority of the review petitions in Justice Qazi Faiz Isa case as unconstitutional, stating that the verdict has converted the entire process from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice

President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan, Law Minister Farogh Naseem, Adviser to Prime Minister on Accountability Mirza Shahzad Akbar and others had filed chamber appeals in the Supreme Court against the objections raised by its registrar office on the curative petitions, seeking review on Justice Qazi Faez Isa case.

Justice Faez Isa, former Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan, Registrar Supreme Court Arbab Arif, Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association and others have been made as respondents.

With 21-page appeals with many grounds, the federal government has prayed the apex court to set aside the order of its registrar office dated May 25, ordering the removal of objections and directing the office to institute/fix the curative petition.

The government demanded a copy of the letter allegedly sent by the two judges of the apex court requesting the Chief Justice of Pakistan to make them part of the larger bench formed for hearing the review petitions of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and his wife Serina Isa.

The government cited two newspaper reports published titled “Is everyone equal before law”, stating that a news had been making rounds on social media that two of the judges of the Supreme Court had reportedly requested the chief justice in writing on the matter.

The federal government contended that the additional attorney general vide letter May 18 had requested for confirmation of the news report and if such letter exists, to grant a copy thereof. “Till date, no denial has been received, while the copy of the said letter has also not been received,” the government submitted, adding that the said news report confirms the grounds of bias and reasonable perception of bias taken up by the appellants in the petition.

It further submitted that the impugned order of the majority in review closes the door of judicial accountability and is otherwise unjust and oppressive the people at large and is a sheer travesty of justice.

“No offence is intended against any judge and such language used can be found in many reported judgments therefore, to say that the language is scandalous, is patently in correct,” the federal government contended.

It is pertinent to mention here that the on May 25, the registrar office of the Supreme Court had raised objections over a set of nine curative petitions on the grounds that the petitions contained scandalous language; besides, under the law, a second review petition could not be filed to challenge a decision on a review petition and the petitions contained many other deficiencies.

The Registrar office had stated in the objections no proper notices had been issued to the respondents while filing the petitions and hence time could not be granted and the case in its original form was being returned for not being entertainable.

The government further contended that the original majority of the seven judges in directing FBR to seek explanation of sources of London properties squarely fell within the parameters of Article 187 of the Constitution and the impugned order of the majority in review in annulling the same is patently incorrect and has occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice.