SC larger bench for early hearing of 17 petitions challenging presidential reference against Justice Isa

A larger bank of 10 members of the Supreme Court, led by Judge Umar Ata Bandial, on Tuesday rejected a request by Judge Qazi Faez Isa's lawyer to postpone the hearing of his petition against a presidential reference for two weeks; instead of postponing the hearing until October 14.

The largest bank had resumed today the hearing of a set of 17 petitions challenging the presidential reference against Judge Isa. Judge Bandial, while rejecting the guilty plea, said a bank member has to travel outside the country after two weeks.

Read more: SJC immune to judicial review, AG tells SC in the Justice Isa case

Judge Bandial said that for now the court is only listening to the arguments around the maintainability of the petitions.

Attorney General Anwar Mansoor also presented his response to the petition presented by Judge Isa today. The court ordered the attorney general to provide a copy of his response to all petitioners in the case.

Munir A. Malik, Justice Isa's lawyer, argued in court that while the petition says that the accusations against his client were based on bad faith intentions, the point in the response to the petition was not mentioned.

Judge Bandial reminded Malik that the case had already been postponed due to his illness. He added that two judges had also separated from the bank due to the petitioner's objections. "This was a painful process," he said.

Judge Bandial noted that the case is one of a kind. Munir responded that the case is a trial of the entire judiciary.

Judge Bandial also said: "The matter is also important for this institution. [judiciary], [so] we have to examine the record produced in court. "

Malik argued that the judge and his relatives were spied on. "A campaign was launched against my client," he said.

Judge Bandial asked the lawyer to elaborate his accusation with the help of the background of the case.

Malik replied that his client had issued a verdict that he did not like. "After the decision, a very deliberate campaign was launched against my client."

"Three properties were bought abroad when the petitioner was president of the Baluchistan High Court," Judge Bandial said, asking if that was not the case.

Malik replied: "The whole nation is looking at this bank, so why hurry up?"

"I want the 10-member bank to protect this institution," he added.

Judge Bandial said: "We are trying to hear the case as soon as possible."

"We are here to hear cases. Let us know if you want a prolonged postponement of the case," he said. The head of the bank also said that an "honorable friend" of his "community" has been charged, so the bank wants to hear the matter in a hurry.

He asked Munir to present his arguments in response to the responses to the petition as soon as possible.

Raza Rabbani, who also requested the court, also asked to be heard. He said he also highlighted the 2005 rules in his guilty plea, while some points in the petition were the same as in other requests.

Judge Bandial responded to Rabbani that the court will listen to him in his turn after the lawyer of the central petitioner of the case completes his arguments.

Lead lawyer Rasheed A. Rizvi, on behalf of the Sindh High Court Bar Association before the main court, filed an objection saying that the court was currently neglecting another 15 petitioners.

"This is a case, not a cake that everyone should share," Bandial responded to Rizvi.

He added that the bank has to keep listening to the case. He said Rizvi will receive a copy of the response presented by the attorney general.

Bilal Manto, another high-ranking lawyer and petitioner in the case, said he has already submitted a request for answers on the establishment of the Supreme Judicial Council. He said he has also sought the record of the procedures in the council. "I will not be able to present arguments without access to the registry," he said.

"Your request will be considered at a later stage," Judge Bandial said.

A referral had been instituted in May this year against Judge Isa, accusing the judge of hiding his property in the United Kingdom allegedly on behalf of his wife and children. After the news of the reference on television screens, the judge wrote several letters to President Arif Alvi, asking him to confirm if the reports were true.

Subsequently, a lawyer from Lahore presented another reference on the act of the judge writing and seeking information from the president, accusing him of violating the code of conduct of the judges.

The Supreme Judicial Council (CSJ), however, annulled the second reference since it did not find the matter "serious or serious enough to constitute sufficient misconduct for its [Justice Isa’s] dismissal of the exalted position of a judge of the Supreme Court. "