The Supreme Court has ordered to adjourn the hearing of cases of constitutional importance and suo motu notices.
A three-member bench of the court issued the order in a case of giving grace marks to Hafiz-e-Quran. The nine-page decision was written by Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, while Justice Shahid Waheed dissented with the decision.
The judgment written by Justice Isa stated that the Constitution and the law do not allow the chief justice to constitute a special bench. There are rules governing petitions filed under Article 184(3).
There are no rules for fixing suo motu cases and setting up benches.
Hence, until such rules are framed, the hearing of important constitutional and suo motu automatic cases should be postponed.
Judges have sworn to act in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The word suo motu does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the majority verdict stated.
The chief justice cannot substitute the wisdom of the Constitution for his wisdom. He has no power to remove a judge from the bench after its composition.
The verdict also states that Pemra’s decision to ban criticism of judges is against the Constitution and Islam. During the hearing, the court’s attention was drawn towards Pemra’s ban on broadcasting criticism of judges.
The regulatory body imposed the ban citing Supreme Court orders, however, the court verdict does not allow Pemra to issue such a ban.
According to the judgment, district court judges work more than Supreme Court and high court judges. But Pemra has never imposed a ban on airing criticism of the district judiciary.
The non-accountability of the judges who hold others accountable is against the Constitution and Shariah. The institutions must win the trust of the public themselves.
In his dissenting note, Justice Waheed says the issue on which the verdict has been announced is not even before the court.
