Islamabad: Senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court (SC), Justice Qazi Faez Isa, stated on Wednesday that the Constitution granted the ability for the entire court to take suo motu notice, not just the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP). He said this while speaking at a ceremony honoring the Constitution’s golden anniversary. Justice Isa, who will take over as CJP in September, was questioned about the conflicting views on the top judge’s suo motu authority during the event.
It should be noted that on March 29 Justice Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan had ruled that the CJP did not have the power to make special benches or decide its members and that all hearings based on suo motu 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 motu 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 motu powers. A bill aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity has also been passed by the 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 motu 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 motu 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 motu 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.”
On the matter of him having differing views from some of the apex court justices, Justice Isa termed “ego” to be something a judge should not possess and said that having differences did not mean having a huge ego.
“When you are in [an important] role, you should not have any ego. If you are a professor, it is possible that your student might know more than you. If you possess an ego, you would frown upon him. This is wrong,” Justice Isa said.
“The day my ego would reflect [in matters], I would not remain a judge. So there are differences — only differences. […] Differences and ego have no relation,” he added.
