Join our Whatsapp channel

       ISLAMABAD: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, wondered on Monday whether judges who were not part of SC’s constitutional bench could be prevented from hearing cases that involve constitutional interpretation, in the wake of the recently adopted 26th amendment.

       The observation came during the hearing of an appeal moved by the federal government’s revenue division against a Sindh High Court (SHC) judgement, challenging the vires of the tax regulatory duty.

       Headed by Justice Shah, the three-judge bench also consisting of Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Irfan Saadat had taken up the appeal.

       The SHC had struck down Section 221(2) of the Customs Tax Act 1969.

       Senior counsel Salahuddin Ahmed told Dawn that during the hearing, Justice Shah said the court would frame a set of questions and would be requiring the counsel’s assistance.

       {try{this.style.height=this.contentWindow.document.body.scrollHeight+'px';}catch{}}, 100)" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="height: 270px; position: relative;" src="https://www.dawn.com/news/card/1876937" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-popups allow-modals allow-forms">

       At the outset, Justice Shah wondered would the appeal go to the constitutional bench or the regular bench, asking if the present bench could hear the matter since the case requires interpretation of legal and constitutional provisions.

       “Is it possible that the judges of the Supreme Court are kept deprived of hearing constitutional matters?” Justice Shah observed, adding that lawyers could take their time in responding to the court’s queries.

       Justice Shah observed that the jurisdiction of ordinary benches had been taken away through Article 191A. “We have to see whether the jurisdiction could be taken away or not,” he remarked. It also involved the question of independence of judiciary, he added.

       Published in Dawn, January 14th, 2025