Justice Isa’s request for larger bench referred to top judge

Announcing its verdict on petitions seeking a larger bench to review a majority judgement in Justice Qazi Faez Isa case, the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday decided to send the matter to Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who was presiding the six-judge bench, announced the 5-1 majority judgement. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik disagreed and will write a dissenting note.

The ruling, reserved in December, was announced on a set of petitions moved by Justice Isa, his wife Sarina Isa and different bar councils, calling for formation of a larger bench instead of a six-member bench to hear the case. In June, the Supreme Court (SC) had dismissed the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa for nondisclosure of family members’ properties in his wealth statement.

The reference filed against Justice Isa by the government in May 2019 alleged that he acquired three properties in London on lease in the name of his wife and children between 2011 and 2015, but did not disclose them in his wealth returns.

Justice Isa contested the allegation, saying he is not a beneficial owner of the flats — neither directly nor indirectly. However, seven of the 10 judges on the bench hearing the case ordered the Inland Revenue Department (IRS) and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to seek explanations from the judge’s wife and children on the nature and source of funding for three properties in their names in the United Kingdom and submit a report to the SC registrar. Justice Isa then approached the apex court, seeking a review of the decision. Bar associations, including the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA), also filed similar petitions.

The petitioners had contended that the three judges — Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Yahya Afridi — who wrote dissenting notes in the detailed reasons should not be excluded from the bench hearing the review petitions.

“The chief justice can form a larger bench on review petitions if he wants,” said the court order issues Monday, adding that normally the bench which delivers the judgement also hears the review petitions.

It also noted that review jurisdiction could only be invoked in relation to the unanimous and majority judgements passed by the apex court.