After 26th Amendment Constitutional bench is full court: Justice Mandokhail

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Tuesday remarked that the seven-member constitutional bench should be considered the full court in the wake of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that after the 26th Amendment, the full court remained no more.

As the constitutional bench heard a case related to tax on ghee mills, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that after the 26th Amendment, there was no need for constituting a full court. Justice Mandokhail observed that he should not hear the instant matter, as he had already given his verdict on the matter in the Balochistan High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a full bench had given its verdict in the instant matter. At this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that after the 26th Amendment, the full court remained no more. Justice Mandokhail remarked that now the seven-member constitutional bench should be considered a full court.

Meanwhile, the bench after issuing notices to the Federation and all the four provinces adjourned the hearing for date-in-office (indefinite period).

Similarly, the Constitutional Bench dismissed a petition for being non-maintainable involving two FIRs. Justice Mandokhail admonished the counsel for the petitioner and remarked as to why his petition should not be dismissed with a heavy fine. Justice Mandokhail observed that cases of such nature had increased the apex court backlog to around 60,000 cases.

Justice Mazhar observed that the court had already ruled on the matter in the Sughran Bibi case and asked why the petitioner did not approach the high court for quashment of the second FIR.

The bench dismissed a plea against the non-payment of salaries by the BOL News Network to its employees after Justice Ayesha A Malik refused to hear a suo motu case on non-payment of salaries by the channel. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, head of the bench, said as one of the members of the constitutional bench, he had refused to hear the matter, hence a new constitutional bench would be constituted and the matter fixed before it. The bench then adjourned the hearing in the matter for the date-in-office.

Hearing a suo motu matter related to the levy of tax on the underground water, the bench adjourned the matter for the date-in-office (indefinite period). Law officers submitted that the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) governments had made legislation on the matter.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that other provinces should also make legislation adding that cases of such nature would remain unresolved for many years if proper legislation were not made. The bench then adjourned the matter for date-in-office. Similarly, the constitutional bench sent two cases back to the regular bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

The bench took up two cases including Saeed Khosa versus the Ministry of Petroleum and the other about the allotment of a plot by a private housing society. Justice Mazhar observed that it was not appropriate to send every case to the constitutional bench suggesting that cases involving constitutional questions should be sent to the constitutional bench.

In another development, the Constitutional Bench dismissed a petition seeking a three-year extension in the tenure of Supreme Court and High Court judges like the tenure of the army chief and upheld the objections raised by the Registrar’s Office terming the petition non-maintainable.

A seven-member constitutional bench — headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan — heard scores of cases. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Musarrat Hilali were the other members of the bench.

The bench dismissed the instant petition after the petitioner Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi did not attend the proceedings despite multiple notices issued by the bench. The bench also upheld the objections raised earlier by the Supreme Court Registrar terming the petition non-maintainable. The constitutional bench termed the non-appearance of the petitioner’s lack of interest in pursuing his petition and dismissed the plea for non-prosecution.

The bench also dismissed Naqvi’s plea for non-prosecution against a speech made by the former chief justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa in parliament.