ISLAMABAD: Senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court (SC) Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Wednesday said that the Constitution gave the top court as a whole the right to take suo-moto notice, adding that this power did not exclusively lie with the chief justice of Pakistan.
He made the remarks while speaking during an event celebrating the Constitution’s golden jubilee. During the event, Justice Isa — who is slated to become the next CJP in September — was asked about the difference in opinion regarding the top judge’s suo-moto powers.
It should be noted that on March 29 Justice Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan had ruled that the Chief Justice did not have the power to make special benches or decide its members and that all hearings based on suo-moto notices and cases of constitutional significance should be postponed until they were legislated upon. However, the order was eventually recalled by a six-member larger bench earlier this month.
“The meaning of the SC in Article 184(3) is that all judges and the chief justice unanimously [take suo-moto notice],” Justice Isa said.
“My opinion is that […] when the court sits, you call it the SC and Article 184(3) starts with ‘Supreme Court’. It does not mention senior puisne judge or chief justice. So my opinion is that only the SC has this right.”
Article 184(3) of the Constitution sets out the SC’s original jurisdiction, and enables it to assume jurisdiction in matters involving a question of “public importance” with reference to the “enforcement of any of the fundamental rights” of Pakistan’s citizens.
Justice Isa’s remarks come amid a growing debate in recent weeks about the CJP’s suo-moto powers. A bill aimed depriving the office of the Chief Justice of powers to take suo-moto notice in an individual capacity has also been passed by passed by Parliament.
However, the implementation of the bill, which is yet to become law, has been curbed by a larger bench headed by CJP Umar Ata Bandial.
During today’s event, Justice Isa said that some of his colleagues were of the opinion that only the CJP could exercise the right to take suo-moto notice. “The Constitution does not say this. If it does, you may tell me the article.”
Talking about another “opinion” regarding the CJP being the “master of the roster”, he again stated that there was no mention of it in the Constitution. The senior judge said that the word suo-moto was a Latin term that was not even mentioned in the Constitution.
He said there were “certain requirements” — such as if the matter was of public importance or if enforcement of fundamental rights was required — for which a suo-moto notice could be taken under Article 184(3).
He said that as per his understanding, Article 184(3) was meant for those treated unjustly, such as “brick kiln workers, bonded labourers, women who were being deprived of education, forced child labour” as such citizens did not have access to legal representation.
He termed the article to be meant for the protection of such people, noting that it had been used “abundantly” in Pakistan.
Expanding upon the circumstances when Article 184(3) should be invoked, Justice Isa said it could not be used to benefit a specific person and should instead be used in matters which affected society as a whole and which concerned fundamental rights.
“Where these two things are not applicable simultaneously, this article cannot be used,” he added.
The senior apex judge also said that this was the only kind of case where there was no right to appeal the court verdict. “When this article is brought into use, one should be very vigilant in each step they take.
