Justice Muneeb Akhtar Declines to Join Article 63A Bench, Cites Procedural Concerns
Supreme Court Judge Justice Muneeb Akhtar has written a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court regarding his decision not to join the bench hearing the review of the Article 63A interpretation case.
During the hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faiz Isa read aloud Justice Akhtar’s letter, in which the latter clarified his stance. He emphasized that he was not recusing himself from the case but objected to joining a bench that was formed by the Practice and Procedure Committee. He stated that his non-participation should not be misunderstood, and he requested that his letter be made part of the revised case record.
CJP’s Response to Justice Akhtar’s Letter
CJP Qazi Faiz Isa acknowledged Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s concerns but noted that it is not customary to include such letters as part of the official court record. He remarked that it would have been more appropriate for Justice Akhtar to express his dissenting opinion directly in the court.
The Chief Justice added, “I always encourage dissenting opinions,” and stressed the significance of the Article 63A case, which has been pending for over two years. He further explained that once a bench is constituted, any refusal to hear the case should occur within the courtroom.
PTI’s Lawyer and Additional Attorney General Weigh In
During the hearing, PTI’s lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar raised concerns regarding the committee’s authority, arguing that the committee can only form a bench when all three members are present.
The Additional Attorney General requested that the bench reconvene tomorrow, while the Chief Justice underscored the importance of hearing the case without delay.
CJP’s Appeal to Justice Muneeb Akhtar
CJP Qazi Faiz Isa made a public request for Justice Muneeb Akhtar to rejoin the bench, expressing his willingness to reconstitute the bench if necessary. “I will attempt to bring Justice Muneeb Akhtar back, but even if he chooses not to join, the case will proceed tomorrow,” he stated.
Following this, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing until 11:30 AM the next day.