ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa has said that it would be regrettable if the Supreme Court does not apply the principle of announcing early judgements to itself.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah announced the judgement in the case of Shahtaj Sugar Mills and others versus Government of Pakistan through secretary finance and others
The case was concluded on December 6, 2023 and the CJP had asked Justice Minallah to write the judgement in the case. The chief justice wrote his additional note in the judgement of the case relating to the Federal Excise Act 2005.
He noted that law and good practice also requires that judgements be written soon after the hearing has concluded, adding that this case was heard on December 6, 2023 and, on the same day, it was marked to Justice Minallah for writing the judgement.
The CJP noted that the judgment took over six months to write, or precisely 223 days, adding that His lordship sent the judgement to him on July 18, 2024, and the very next day on July 19, 2024, “I wrote my note thereon and signed it.”
The chief justice recalled that this court then (in the MFMY Industries case) proceeded to dilate upon the maximum time that may be taken in writing a judgement by the high court in its appellate, revisional and constitutional jurisdiction. “In the MFMY Industries case, the Supreme Court also reminded judges of their responsibility”, the chief justice said adding that in that case the court had held that the judges of superior courts cannot be said to be unaware or unmindful about their responsibility of providing speedy justice and the expediency of dispensation of the justice. “And of course the mandate of Article X of the Judges Code of Conduct, which they have sworn (vide their oath) to follow and abide by in letter and spirit,” the CJP noted.
He held that it would be most regrettable if the Supreme Court tells other courts to decide cases within a particular timeframe but does not do so itself, adding that fairness and the fundamental right and equality principle embedded in Article 25(1) of the Constitution cannot countenance this. “If I, as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, do not remind my distinguished colleagues of the aforesaid matters and implore them to decide cases expeditiously I will be shirking my responsibility,” the CJP held.
“Unlike other institutions and all those who are in the service of Pakistan, judges are accountable to themselves, therefore, they must be beyond reproach in their work ethic,” the CJP held, adding that the credibility of an institution on which a substantial amount is spent from the public exchequer and in which hundreds are employed, must not be allowed to be undermined.
He further held that justice delayed, being tantamount to the denial of justice, is also a hollowed principle of policy stipulated in the Constitution which requires us to provide expeditious justice.
In his note, Justice Isa said that Article 201 of the Constitution does not state that a high court’s decision is binding on other high courts too. Justice Minallah, however, in his judgement had ruled that the finality attained by the judgement of the Lahore High Court had a binding effect on the other high courts to the extent of the legality and vires of the notification.
He held that the Sindh High Court could not have taken a contrary view by declaring the notification as illegal and thus striking it down. The chief justice, however, disagreed with the two sentences given in the judgement and held that Article 201 does not state that a high court’s decision is binding on other high courts too.
“I have had the pleasure of reading the clearly expounded judgement written by my distinguished colleague Hon’ble Justice Athar Minallah and with the exception of two sentences in paragraph six,” the CJP noted in his dissenting note. “I am in respectful agreement therewith. Removing these sentences from the judgement does not affect the outcome of the decision,” the CJP noted, adding that since these two sentences may be used/ misused in some other case, they need to be attended to.
