Islamabad: Justice Yahya Afridi of the Supreme Court has objected to the Chief Justice’s taking of notice in the case related to the election date.
In his supplementary note released on Monday along with the court order for the February 23 hearing, the apex court judge explained the logic of taking suo motu notice despite the fact that the matter is pending before the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa High Court. But raised the question. .
Justice Afridi also recused himself from the nine-member bench hearing the case, after which a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial was constituted.
“For detailed reasons to be recorded later, it appears prima facie that these applications fall within the ambit of Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Under the aforesaid provision of the Constitution To order that the issues raised in the petitions are currently pending before the Lahore High Court (LHC) in Intra Court Appeal No. 11096 of 2023, Contempt of Court Petition No. 10468/W/2023, and Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court. No. 407-P/2023.
Noting that jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is not affected by the pendency of any matter before any other court or forum, the LHC’s decision and the parties’ “strange allegations” and unwavering political stance”, warrants this court. To exercise “judicial restraint” to reinforce the principle of propriety.
The judge added that this is to avoid any negative reflection on the Supreme Court’s judicial precedent to decide.
“Therefore, the passing of any findings or remarks by this Court during the pendency of the present petitions would not only affect the contentions contested by the parties in the said petitions/appeals pending before the respective High Courts but more importantly It is that the hierarchical judicial jurisdiction of the High Court as envisaged under the Constitution will be affected. It will also harm the judicial dignity which the High Court deserves in the safe, mature and dignified administration of justice. Accordingly, I dismiss these three applications.
“Having decided that it would not be appropriate to exercise the powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in the present three petitions pending before us, I feel that there is no point in continuing to hear the said petitions. However. , I leave it to the Honorable Chief Justice to decide my retention in the present Bench hearing the said applications.
