ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa Friday observed that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was using delaying tactics by seeking general adjournment.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by CJP Isa and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarat Hilali heard the review petition filed by the PTI against court’s judgement delivered on January 13 regarding PTI’s intra-party elections.
The court, however, adjourned the hearing until October 21, warning that no further adjournment will be given.
The bench on January 13 had set aside the order of Peshawar High Court (PHC) that had overturned the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) decision revoking the ‘cricket bat’, PTI’s electoral symbol, and rejecting its intra-party elections.
The bench had accepted the ECP appeal filed against the PHC order.
Later on, the PTI on February 6, 2024 had filed a review petition against the court’s January 13 judgement.
On Friday, when the hearing in the review petition was resumed, nobody from the PTI appeared before the court.
PTI counsel Hamid Khan on Thursday had filed an application in the court seeking adjournment in the review petition due to his family engagements.
During the hearing, Akbar S Babar along with his counsel came to rostrum and told the court that Hamid Khan has sought general adjournment in the review petition.
The CJP, however, asked the counsel to read paragraph number two of the request for adjournment, on which he read the paragraph related to the domestic engagement of Hamid Khan
Justice Isa observed that a novel way was adopted by Hamid Khan for seeking adjournment, adding that earlier this case was scheduled for hearing in the proposed cause list on May 29.
He said that PTI counsel Ali Zafar had sought general adjournment by June 4, adding that a member of the bench had undergone open heart surgery.
The CJP further said that no application was filed to fix the review application for early hearing but now, when the case has been fixed for hearing, no lawyer has appeared for the petitioner.
“It seems that the PTI is no more interested to pursue its review petition,” the CJP remarked, adding that drum beaters had made the intra-party election case as ‘bat’ symbol case.
Without naming any journalist or vlogger, Justice Isa said that they should first read the court decision and then criticise.
He observed that adjournment is always sought due to death or ill health but this is the first time such a request has come before the court, citing family engagement
To a question, counsel for Akbar S Babar replied that the PTI intra-party elections were held on March 3, which has been challenged.
The chief justice observed that by seeking general adjournment, the PTI was using delaying tactics, adding that all its lawyers and assistants did not come.
“This method is not correct and there should not be such an attitude in the Supreme Court,” he remarked, adding that the court is going to adjourn the case in the interest of justice but not on the request of Hamid Khan.
“Even this morning, we have also rejected a request seeking general adjournment,” the CJP remarked.
Justice Mazhar observed that Barrister Ali Zafar had represented the PTI in this case. The CJP observed that there is no such thing anywhere in the world to ask for a bench or a date of one’s choice.
“We cannot make a separate law for anyone here, it’s okay if you don’t want to pursue a case for ten years, then don’t pursue it,” the CJP remarked.
Justice Hilali observed that this is not a procedure, not even a junior lawyer is present on his (Hamid Khan) behalf, on which the CJP said that now there is a legal right to change the lawyer in the revision.
“It is very clear that the delay tactics are being used, they wanted a headline, but the Supreme Court will not give such a headline,” the CJP remarked.
Replying to court query, counsel for Akbar S Babar said that a short order was issued on January 13, while a detailed decision was issued on January 25.
He further informed the court that the general elections were held on February 8, while a review request was filed in the Supreme Court against the decision of this case on February 6.
The chief justice said that this means that the PTI has not been harmed by this order.
Meanwhile, the court dictated its order stating that Advocate Hamid Khan applied for adjournment in which family engagement was mentioned. The court noted that in the application, it was only stated that there is family engagement, but what engagement, it is not mentioned and neither the advocate-on-record appeared before the court.
The court further noted down in its order that in this case, apart from Hamid Khan, Niazullah Niazi, Ajmal Toor, Barrister Gohar were also counsels, adding that if Hamid Khan was not available, another lawyer could have appeared.
The court further noted that under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, now a right for hiring another counsel in the review petition has been granted.
The court held that hearing in the review petition is being adjourned keeping in view of the requirement of justice but warned that no further adjournment will be given.
The court then adjourned the hearing until October 21 with the direction that copy of the court’s order be provided to the counsels for the petitioners.
Prosecutors will in coming week ask court in southern city Avignon to sentence 51 men
Both executives have not discussed specific measures to keep TikTok running in United States
Economy has improved somewhat over past few months, and reason for this is IMF programme, says Humayun
Bessent, chief executive officer of Key Square Group, has called for extension of tax cuts from Trump’s first term
Chief of Malaysian Royal Air Force, who is of Pakistani origin, paid visit to his native Beir, Haripur, on Saturday
Local and official sources say first explosion took place in Irab area in jurisdiction of Loy Mamond Police Station
