Islamabad:

Supreme Court Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar has warned regular benches not to practice jurisdiction in issues related to the interpretation of the law and the constitution that falls within the domain of the constitutional bench under Article 191a of the Constitution.

“With all the humility of my command and with proper reverence, if any regular bench, despite the clear and unambiguous constitutional provisions, takes over bybite jurisdiction or undertakes to decide the alleged controvers jurisdiction, but also constitutes a violation of Article 191a of the Constitution.

“The judges have declined an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In addition, Code “) And subsequently amended in accordance with Article 209 (2) -Page -judgment written by Justice Mazhar, while he agreed on the decision of the constitutional bench in which the two judicial orders of the regular bench were revoked.

A three-judge bench of the Point Court, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, had adopted temporary orders to assess legal questions whether regular benches could be blocked to hear the issues related to the interpretation of law and constitution under Article 191a of the Constitution.

Despite legal orders, the Committee for Constitution Bench had withdrawn the case from the ordinary bench, and the same was determined before the constitutional bench. Later, the constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan also remembered these orders.

However, the constitutional bench did not give a reason how the committee could withdraw the matter in violation of the legal order.

Justice Mazhar noted that no bench of this court, except the constitutional bench, can exercise: (i) the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 184; (ii) Supreme Court’s Appeal Jurisdiction pursuant to Clause (3) of Article 185, in which a judgment or decision of a Supreme Court passed in accordance with Article 199; and (iii) Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 186.

The accuracy of clause (5) of Article 191A dictates that all petitions, appeals or review of applications for judgments issued or orders adopted as clause (3) is valid, pending or submitted to the Supreme Court before they commencing with the 26th change immediately with condition transferred to the constitutional benches and must only be heard and decided by benches composed according to clause (4).

The term “immediately transferred” is explicit and well -articulated, which does not allow for misunderstanding or confusion. This phrase cannot be equated with a pure hiring of clause establishing a legal fiction by treating something as if it were different from its actual state or declares that certain facts should be taken as established, “Justice Mazhar said.

With regard to the role of two committees working under the Supreme Court’s practice and procedure, 2023, SC -Judge said than those who fell within clause (3) of Article 191a of the Constitution.

“In contrast, the committee in accordance with section 2a is assigned to jurisdiction to determine whether a case falls within clause (3) of Article 191a. If it does, it must be heard by the constitutional bench; if not, it can be referred To the committee, under section 2 for fixation and disposal of another bench.

The SC judge also said that it is also clear beyond any shadow of doubt that both committees have been assigned different roles and responsibilities, with neither overlapping or breaching constitutional bench is also an ex-officer member of the committee that is composed According to section 2 of the law on practice and procedure.

“Currently, if a case falls within clause (3) of Article 191a of the Constitution, the first committee has no jurisdiction to resolve such, or vice versa, does not create or extend jurisdiction as the clear distinction has already been established under to Article 191a of the Constitution.

Justice Mazhar also said that instead of taking awareness or taking over jurisdiction or adopting any court decision on fixation, the best course of action would have been to refer the case to the committee that is paid in accordance with section 2 of the law on practice and procedure.

“Had the committee found the case beyond jurisdiction for a regular bench, it could have referred to the committee set up for the decision on whether a question should be sent to the constitutional bench. Even the aforementioned committee for its own movement may refer to the matter to the committee for constitutional benches for treatment.

“According to the current scheme of the Constitution, the judges of the Supreme Court’s constitutional benches can be nominated from time to time, as can be decided by the legal commission in Pakistan, with the rider that such a bench may include equal number of judges from each province.

“It is also a matter of registration that after the introduction of constitutional changes and the constitution of the constitutional bench, the ordinary benches and the constitutional bench, through mutual cooperation and to be two branches of a tree, transferred cases between them to hearing II compliance with their respective jurisdictions, as limited under the current constitutional scheme.

Justice Mazhar said that in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 2a in the practice and procedure, the Supreme Court registrar is obliged to provide the necessary administrative and sectoral support for the constitutional benches.

“In my opinion, this provision highlights the role of the Justice Secretary’s office, including the FIXTUR branch, in helping the other committee determine jurisdiction through a talking order if a case does not fall within the constitutional bench jurisdiction, it can then be referred to the committee, that is composed to decide the fixing of the case for the ordinary bench of this court.

or supervision In the event of fixation and affected branches/officials, the nitty-gritties of Article 191a in the Constitution may be sensitized so that they may not make any such mistake or misunderstanding in the future.

“The recklessness or unintentional of the officials concerned has created an unjustified situation that has led to misunderstandings for no righte to information technology (IT) of this court. In addition, the constitutional bench Of remaining confusion, case files can be set by the Justice Secretary of the relevant Committee for a preliminary jurisdictional provision “Justice Mazhar.

“The constitutional bench on 28.01.2025 rightly remembered the orders dated 13.01.2025 and 16.01.2025, adopted by the ordinary bench of this court, which was without jurisdiction and apparently by remembering such orders, the overructure built on it, also collapsed, thus collapsing, thus collapse, any case taken, orders adopted or actions made in accordance with the aforementioned orders lose their status and effect, ”he concluded.