During the hearing of a tax-related case in the Supreme Court on Monday, the judges got into a debate over the necessity of a constitutional bench.
Senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah raised the question if the regular bench they were on was unconstitutional until the constitutional bench is established. He also remarked that even if the present bench heard the case, no one could question it. “Even if we decide the case, what will happen? If a review plea comes before us, we’ll say it’s our jurisdiction,” he added.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that this case would be heard by the constitutional bench. Justice Shah asked that since there was no constitutional bench as of now, what should be done about the “unconstitutional bench” they were a part of.
“Are we unconstitutional until the constitutional bench is established?” he asked, adding that this means constitutional cases would not be heard until the constitutional bench comes into force.
He further remarked that even if this regular bench heard the case, nobody could question it. Even if the regular bench decided the case, who could stop it, he asked further.
“If a review plea comes before us, we will say that it is under our jurisdiction,” Justice Shah added.
Justice Malik stated that under Article 2A, the Practice and Procedure Committee would decide whether the case should be assigned to a constitutional or regular bench, but added that it would take time.
Justice Shah also acknowledged the need to give the matter more time, suggesting that they wait for clarity on which bench has jurisdiction. The hearing was ultimately adjourned indefinitely.
