Four amended review petitions question Isa case verdict


The Supreme Court on Thursday received four amended review petitions in which petitioners have questioned the majority judgement in presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The amended review petitions, however, adopted the reasoning and conclusions drawn by Justice Maqbool Baqar and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah who dissented from the majority judgement endorsed by seven judges of the 10-judge full court.

The amended petitions were filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Balochistan Bar Association, Punjab Bar Council vice chairman Shahnawaz Ismail and Quetta Bar Association president Mohammad Asif Reki through their counsel Hamid Khan.

Under Article 209(8) of the Constitution, it is for the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), and not the Supreme Court, to issue a code of conduct to be observed by the superior court judges, the amended petitions argued.

Thus the majority judgement had rewritten the code of conduct that too retrospectively by mandating that failure of a judge not to make him aware or to make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of his family members constitutes misconduct, it said.

The code of conduct issued by the SJC was last amended on Aug 8, 2009, but it did not incorporate the Banglore Principles, the draft of which pre-dated the code by almost nine years, the petition said, adding that the Banglore Principles required information about the financial interest of the spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law and any other close relative or person who was a companion or employee of the judge and who lived in the judge’s household.

In fact, the adoption by the United Nations Economic and Social Council of the Banglore Principles took place almost three years prior to the last amendment to in the code of conduct and such principles themselves urged that effective measure be adopted by the national judiciaries to provide mechanisms to implement these principles, the petition said.


Leave A Reply