It appears that there was a recent development in the Supreme Court of Pakistan involving a six-member bench that recalled an interim order issued by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan. The interim order, which had been issued on March 29, had ordered the postponement of suo motu matters and questioned the chief justice’s power to form special benches or decide their members. However, the newly formed six-member bench deemed the order “both without and beyond jurisdiction” and recalled it.
The detailed court order stated that Justice Isa and Justice Khan’s order was in violation of a previous five-member bench’s order from August 2021 that only the chief justice could take suo motu notice. The court also agreed with the observations made by the chief justice in a circular issued by the SC registrar’s office, stating that they rectified an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction and interference with powers that should solely rest with the chief justice.
The court further stated that since the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) had informed that the regulations granting additional marks for memorizing the Holy Quran were not in force and the current regulations did not allow such marks, no further proceedings in the suo motu case were required, and the case was disposed of as having been infructuous.
Justice Isa had proposed in his previous order that cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be postponed until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the chief justice’s discretionary powers to form benches. He argued that the chief justice could not substitute his personal wisdom for that of the Constitution and that collective determination by the chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court could not be assumed by an individual, even the chief justice.
This recent development in the Supreme Court of Pakistan highlights ongoing debates and discussions about the powers and jurisdiction of the chief justice and other judges in the country’s judicial system. It also underscores the importance of adherence to constitutional principles and established rules and procedures in the functioning of the judiciary. Overall, it reflects the dynamic nature of the legal system and the complexities involved in the interpretation and application of the law. It’s worth noting that legal matters and decisions can change over time and it’s important to stay updated with the latest developments in the judiciary.