ISLAMABAD: The government has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the apex court’s judgement on review petitions in Justice Qazi Fae Isa case, which has been returned by the registrar with objections.
The Supreme Court’s registrar office, however, returned the petitions, saying that the court cannot review more than one case at the same time.
The appeals were filed by President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan, Advisor on Interior and Accountability Shahzad Akbar, Law Minister Farogh Naseem, and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
The petitions called for the formation of a full-bench comprising all the judges of the apex court, in which Justice Isa was made a party. The government maintained that under Article 184(3), the Supreme Court can hear the case under suo motu powers even after decision on review petition.
It was earlier reported that President Arif Alvi had once again approached the Supreme Court in Justice Isa’s reference case, seeking the re-hearing of the petitions.
The president has reportedly filed a constitutional petition under the self-notice jurisdiction, in which Justice Qazi Faez Isa has been made a party in the 70-page petition.
In the petition, the president has taken the position that even after the decision on the review petition, a hearing can be held on the jurisdiction of self-notice.
Under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the federal government can challenge the registrar office’s decision within 30 days. The registrar’s office objected that the subject was written as suo motu notice, while ‘curative review’ was mentioned in the application.
It said power of attorney was not submitted by the prime minister and president. It further said objectionable language was used in the application, while scandalous language was used on pages 9, 46, 48, 64 and 73.
It may be recalled that on June 19, 2020, a 10-member bench of the Supreme Court, in a short judgment, had quashed the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa and dismissed it. Four months later, the Supreme Court had issued a detailed judgment in this regard.
