ISLAMABAD: The federal government finally lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court on Thursday against a refusal by the registrar’s office to entertain an unheard of legal remedy — curative review petition — in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case.
The registrar’s office had returned a set of nine curative review petitions on May 25 on the grounds that the petitions contained “scandalous language”. The Supreme Court office also observed that a second review petition cannot be filed against a decision already given on a review petition.
The registrar’s office had highlighted that the curative appeals contained many other deficiencies.
On June 24, the government sought 15 days to move an appeal against the registrar office since paperwork was not complete.
The office accepted the federal government’s request on consideration that 90 paper books (nine appeals each for the 10 judges who heard the review petition) have to be filed.
According to the Supreme Court rules of 1980, any appeal to challenge a decision of the registrar’s office is taken up in his chambers by a judge, designated by the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The judge either accepts the appeal or refers the same to a three-judge Supreme Court bench which decides whether the original appeal be fixed for hearing or not.
The Supreme Court registrar’s office, while returning the government’s “curative review petition” in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case, ruled that the federation had misinterpreted the 1980 rules when it moved a set of five petitions.
In its order, the office explained that the curative review petition was an application which provides information to initiate “suo motu” proceedings under Articles 184 (3), 187, 188 and 189 of the Constitution, read with orders 26 and 33 of the Supreme Court rules.
The objection explained that since the present case amounted to a second review petition, it was not entertainable under Order 36, Rule 9, of the Supreme Court rules. According to the order, after the final disposal of the first application for review, no “subsequent application for review will lie to the court” and will not be entertained by the registry.
The registrar’s office further stated that “suo motu case” had been mentioned on the title page of the petitions, but in the subject it was mentioned as a “curative review petition”.
Moreover, the power of attorney of the petitioners — the President and others in favour of the Advocate on Record — were not properly executed. “Scandalous language” was used on five occasions in the petitions, according to the office.
Since the petitioner did not issue proper notices to the respondents, including Justice Isa, the time sought for cannot be granted and the case in its original form was being returned, the objections clarified.
On April 26, the Supreme Court by a majority of six to four had overturned its majority ruling of June 19 last year. The court ordered investigation by the tax authorities into three foreign properties in the name of the wife and children of Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
Consequently, the entire exercise conducted by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) was rendered null and void since the fresh order, which came on a set of review petitions, recalled and set aside the June 19 verdict.
Although the verdict quashed the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa, it authorised the FBR to evaluate and later impose tax liability on Mrs Isa for possessing three properties in the United Kingdom.
The short order clarified that all subsequent proceedings, actions, orders, information and reports in pursuance of the directives issued through the June 19 ruling, as well as the detailed reasons of that short order, were without any legal effect.
The order made it clear that no forum, including the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), would consider any report or order or hold any proceedings.
As a result of the short order, eight paragraphs (from four to 11) of the June 19 short order and the subsequent detailed judgment of Oct 23 were recalled.
The paragraphs were challenged by the petitioners through the review petitions, which dubbed them superfluous, contradictory, excessive and unlawful.
The government had prayed that the apex court review the judgement to the extent of FBR’s report submitted to the SJC so that the council could proceed against Justice Isa by exercising its powers of suo motu.
Published in Dawn, July 9th, 2021
