Constitutional bench commences pending cases' hearing

ISLAMABAD: The six-member constitutional bench began hearing the cases, that have been pending in the Supreme Court for many years, in Court Room No 3 on Thursday, aiming to clear the large backlog.

According to the cause list for November 14 and 15, the six-member constitutional bench, presided by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, would hear 34 cases.

The new bench, established under the 26th tweak to the constitution, is conducting its first hearing today.

Eighteen of these cases will be heard by the bench today and the remaining 16 will be heard on Friday (tomorrow).

Apart from Justice Amin, the constitutional bench comprises Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

In view of the unavailability of Justice Ayesha A Malik on November 14 and 15, a relevant committee had decided that a bench comprising all available judges shall be constituted to proceed with cases on these dates.

The bench will hear environment-related cases including the one that has been pending with the Supreme Court since 1993 as well.

A review petition against the dismissal of a case challenging the nomination of Justice Qazi Faez Isa as chief justice of the Balochistan High Court, filed by Riaz Hanif Rai Advocate, will also be heard by the bench.

The bench will also take up a plea seeking a rescheduling of the 2024 elections as it was prayed before the court that the elections should be held between February and March.

Similarly, the constitutional bench heard cases related to pleas for the disqualification of lawmakers with foreign business and assets. Other cases heard by the bench involved pleas seeking a ban on government servants contracting marriages with foreign nationals, and suo motu cases initiated by former CJP Isa regarding the use of Islamabad’s Convention Centre for private events.

'Leave Qazi sahib alone'

Apart from the other pleas, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench also dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa as Chief Justice of the Balochistan High Court.

During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that the Supreme Court had heard the Bhutto case 40 years later, suggesting a precedent.

In response, Justice Mandokhail clarified that this was a review petition and that the original case could not be reopened.

Justice Hilali remarked that the court was not a platform for political speeches, and urged the petitioner to focus on the law, saying, "Leave Qazi Sahib alone."

Justice Amin-ud-Din questioned the legal basis for requiring consultation with the chief minister for such an appointment, to which the petitioner’s lawyer admitted they lacked the necessary records but suggested that these could be requested from Balochistan.

Justice Mandokhail proposed that such petitions be referred to the Pakistan Bar Council for consideration. The Constitutional Bench ultimately dismissed the review petition against Isa.

Environment case

In today’s hearing, Justice Mazhar stated that all environmental matters would be overseen, while Justice Musarrat Hilali emphasised that housing societies are being constructed everywhere in the country.

The Supreme Court noted that a letter had been received regarding plans to convert Islamabad into an industrial zone. Justice Mandokhail pointed out that environmental pollution is a nationwide issue, not limited to Islamabad, and highlighted that vehicle smoke is a major cause of pollution.

He also questioned whether efforts are being made to reduce this smoke.

During the hearing, Justice Naeem Akhtar expressed concern about the destruction of fields and farms due to housing societies and stressed that farmers need protection.

He further remarked that while nature has provided fertile land, it is being destroyed. He questioned what actions are being taken for future generations.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the state of Punjab is evident, and that Islamabad had similar conditions just a few days ago. Justice Mazhar asked why the Environment Protection Authority is not fulfilling its role, noting that the issue has been ongoing since 1993 and needs to be resolved.

He also pointed out that the entire country is facing serious environmental challenges.

Justice Mandokhail mentioned that something being mixed into petrol is contributing to pollution. Justice Hilali raised concerns about the proliferation of poultry farms and marble factories in Mansehra, as well as the pollution affecting some of Swat's beautiful locations.

Justice Mazhar questioned the need for institutions if the court itself has to oversee the matter.

Further, Justice Hilali pointed out that no construction can take place without the Environmental Agency's approval, yet housing societies continue to spread despite the agency's presence.

She also highlighted the problem of marble factories being located next to school buildings in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Justice Hilali noted that officers of the Environmental Agency in Islamabad rarely leave their offices, and that smog has become a significant issue.

Justice Mandokhail asked about the causes of smog and how it can be eliminated. The Director General of the Environmental Agency reported that important actions had been taken following court orders.

Justice Afghan remarked that housing societies are replacing farms, with Lahore's pollution now reaching Sheikhupura. He noted that Islamabad is also facing an overabundance of housing societies, which are destroying fertile land.

Justice Afghan questioned why flats are not being promoted instead of housing societies, adding that farming is being destroyed, and the environment is worsening.

The constitutional bench then requested reports from all provinces regarding measures to combat environmental pollution and postponed the hearing for three weeks at the request of the additional attorney general.

The court also sought information on actions taken to eliminate pollution and consolidated all related cases.

Dismissal of cases

Meanwhile, the bench also dismissed the case related to narcotics on the grounds that it had become ineffective.

Similarly, the petition challenging the appointment of Qazi Jan Mohammad was also dismissed due to its ineffectiveness.

In another case, the court disposed of the petition against the appointment of Muhammad Sohail as the Director General of the Malir Development Authority.

Moreover, the constitutional bench dismissed the petition seeking rescheduling of general elections 2024. Justice Mandokhail also suggested imposing heavy fines for lawyer’s absence.

The additional attorney general also said that since the general elections have already taken place, this petition has become ineffective.

The case pertaining to reviewing the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act was disposed of for its being ineffective.

Justice Mandokhail said the matter was ineffective now. The AAG said review to the extent of questioning was sought on the parliament’s authority.

Justice Amin said the parliament's power to legislate had been accepted in the Practice and Procedure Act case.

In the Practice and Procedure Act case, the standard operating procedure for parliament's legislation was determined, said the constitutional court.

The plea seeking annulment of legislation made during the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) government was dismissed with a fine of Rs20,000 by declaring it frivolous.

The request for imposing fines in both the cases was made by AAG Aamir Rehman.

The Supreme Court's constitutional bench also dismissed a petition seeking to prevent government employees from marrying foreign nationals, imposing a fine in the process.

During the proceedings, Justice Mandokhail remarked that the authority to regulate such matters lies with Parliament, questioning how the court could impose such a restriction.

Justice Mazhar questioned the feasibility of the petitioner’s request, asking if it would be appropriate to prevent a government employee from marrying a foreign national. He further inquired if there was any law prohibiting such marriages, and if so, requested its presentation.

The petitioner, citing severe illness, requested additional time. Justice Hilali remarked that imposing a restriction on marriage was unreasonable and warranted a penalty instead. Ultimately, the constitutional bench dismissed the petition, imposing a fine of Rs20,000.

A petition seeking to prohibit individuals with foreign assets and bank accounts from contesting elections was dismissed by the Supreme Court's constitutional bench, with a fine imposed on the petitioner.

Justice Mandokhail noted that legislation is the responsibility of Parliament, questioning how the Election Commission of Pakistan could create laws regarding foreign accounts and assets.

Justice Mazhar observed that the petitioner had not presented any substantial legal grounds in the application.

The petitioner argued that individuals with foreign assets and bank accounts should not be allowed to run for office.

However, Justice Mazhar pointed out that no specific names were provided for those alleged to hold foreign assets or accounts.

Justice Mandokhail further remarked that the court could not direct Parliament to legislate on this matter. Justice Amin-ud-Din suggested that the petitioner should approach their elected representative to pursue legislation on the issue.