Composition of apex court bench on army chief’s term a hot topic

The request by the government before the Supreme Court to review its November 28 verdict on the extension of the army chief’s tenure by a larger bench has sparked debate among legal circles, with everyone awaiting the composition of the bench to hear the matter.

Will Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed constitute a five-judge bench or a larger one, to be headed by himself, or simply decline the government’s request and fix the matter before the same bench consisting of the judge who authored the verdict and another senior judge with the chief justice presiding, is the question being asked by everyone.

Howevr, everyone believes that time is ripe to end perceived institutional polarisation in the best interest of the country by sticking to the Constitution.

The federal government moved a review petition before the Supreme Court on Thursday to seek a review of the November 28 verdict in which a threejudge Supreme Court bench, comprising then-Chief Justice

Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, had held the extension granted by the government to Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa would end after six months in case parliament did not legislate and determine his service tenure.

To constitute the bench is the chief justice’s discretion, but since the matter is of public importance, the decision should come after an open hearing, said a senior counsel.

The normal practice under Supreme Court rules is that the review petition is placed before the bench that heard the first one.

The rules also suggest that the case be argued by the lawyer who earlier represented the petitioner unless the court allows a different counsel.

In case a larger bench is constituted, the author judge against whose judgment the review is being sought will also be a member of the newly-constituted bench, in addition to the third judge of the previous one.

The Supreme Court is on a winter break till January 5, although ordinary cases are being heard by different benches.

It is likely that if the government’s petition is not fixed by next week, the case could be placed before a bench only after the vacation period.

However, all agree that unless the operation of the November 28 verdict is suspended, the government is obliged to implement the directives contained in it by invoking parliamentary proceedings for determining the service tenure of the army chief.