Justice Munib Akhtar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has protested against a decision by the Chief Justice-led bench to proceed without him. He refused to attend the hearing of a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s verdict on the defection clause under Article 63-A. Justice Munib registered his objection in a letter to the court on Monday.
In his letter, Justice Munib expressed discontent over the four judges proceeding with the case without the full five-member bench. “Four judges could not have sat and heard the matter listed before a five-member Bench,” he stated. He emphasized that he did not recuse himself but objected to the constitution of the bench by the Practice and Procedure Committee.
The originally formed bench was headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. It included Justices Amin-Ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Mazhar Alam, and Justice Munib Akhtar. However, Justice Munib did not attend Monday’s hearing, prompting the Chief Justice to adjourn the session until the next day. Chief Justice Isa expressed hope that Justice Munib would rejoin the bench for the subsequent hearing.
Read: Karachi Customs Directorate Uncovers Rs. 642.83 Million Tax Evasion
Justice Munib’s Request
In a previous letter, Justice Munib requested that his concerns be made part of the official case record. Chief Justice Isa, however, declined this request, noting it would have been better if Justice Munib had voiced his opinion while participating in the proceedings.
Justice Munib’s latest letter reiterates his protest. He wrote, “What happened seems to be a departure from precedent, law, and rules. I cannot accept this.” He also expressed respect for the four judges who conducted the hearing but maintained that the decision to proceed without him violated legal procedures.
Justice Munib further explained that a five-member bench will hear the Civil Review Petition (CRP), as confirmed by an official note he received after the hearing. “The note confirms that five members heard the CRP. However, I did not participate, and the hearing proceeded with only four judges,” he wrote.
He added that the bench had space for five signatures, with his spot left blank. “This further confirms that the hearing should have involved all five members,” Justice Munib argued.
He also criticized the directive from the Chief Justice’s bench, stating it could not be considered a “judicial order.” He concluded by saying, “I must respectfully record my protest at what has been done. The direction in paragraph 4 of the order holds no legal consequence.”
Following Justice Munib’s dissent, Chief Justice Isa called a session of the Supreme Court’s Practice and Procedure Committee for Tuesday morning. The committee, formed under the SC Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance, had previously constituted nine larger benches to hear review petitions pending since 2018. This development adds to the growing debate over the role and authority of the Supreme Court in handling constitutional matters.
Follow us on Google News, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook,Whats App, and TikTok for latest updates
