ISLAMABAD: The mino­rity judgement in the Jus­tice Qazi Faez Isa review case on Friday dismissed all the review petitions and upheld its earlier short order of June 19, 2020, as well as the subsequent detailed reasons in their entirety.

In the present case there is material that calls for an explanation before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) which must be provided to protect the petitioner (Justice Isa) and the court from aspersions cast on their integrity, observed Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial in the judgement he authored.

On Jan 29, the Supreme Court had issued its majority judgement by highlighting that its June 19, 2020, directive to the tax authorities to investigate allegations against Sarina Isa, the wife of Justice Isa, about not declaring three foreign properties in her name and her children and submit its findings to the SJC violated the principle of natural justice.

In his judgement, Chief Justice Bandial said that by accepting the review petitions and seeking to prevent a consideration of the freshly discovered relevant and genuine information, the majority view had created an anomalous situation whereby a process of the court in aid of justice had been turned into a process that shrouded the truth under legal niceties.

Justice Akhtar says three verdicts issued in all

An unsatisfactory state of affairs, therefore, exists that casts an impression that the apex court has adopted a different standard for one of its own, according to the CJP’s judgement.

“Judges occupy an exalted position in society as dispensers of justice. They are amongst the elites in society. Therefore, neglecting their duty to search and confront the truth goes against the express command of Almighty Allah who has warned against providing preferential treatment to privileged persons,” it said.

Meanwhile, Justice Munib Akhtar observed that neither the judgement of four members of the bench nor that of Justice Yahya Afridi, or such reasoning or ratio as may be common between them, has any “binding precedential effect or value”.

“There is no ratio or reasoning that has operative effect as being that of the court.”

Justice Akhtar said that there were three judgements in the case. One was the present judgement, which had the support of four judges, namely the CJP, Justice Akhtar, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed. Of the two remaining judgements, one was by Justice Afridi. Yet another one was by the four judges still on the bench, namely Justice Maq­bool Baqar, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Jus­tice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, since Justice Manzoor Malik had already retired.

“There is, therefore, no judgement that commands the support of the majority of the judges who heard and decided the review petitions and are still on the court,” Justice Akhtar said.

Published in Dawn, February 5th, 2022