Islamabad (Web Desk): Supreme Court's (SC) senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has raised critical concerns regarding the legitimacy of a regular bench hearing constitutional cases.
While presiding over a three-member bench hearing a tax-related matter, Justice Shah questioned the constitutional validity of proceeding without a dedicated constitutional bench, asking, “If there is no constitutional bench, does that mean we are acting unconstitutionally?”
His remarks came as the court debated whether the tax case, which involved constitutional implications, should be transferred to a specialized constitutional bench rather than being heard by the current bench.
Justice Ayesha Malik, another member of the bench, clarified that the court was proceeding with the case under the existing structure until a constitutional bench could be formed.
However, Justice Shah raised further doubts, suggesting that any ruling issued by the regular bench might be scrutinized for its authority in the absence of a formal constitutional bench.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi also contributed to the discussion, questioning whether the court, in its current composition, had the jurisdiction to continue hearing the case.
In response, Justice Malik referred to Article 2-A of the Constitution, noting that the Practice and Procedure Committee would ultimately decide which cases should be assigned to a constitutional bench, although she acknowledged this would take some time to resolve.
Ultimately, Justice Shah concluded that a verdict could not be reached at this stage and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
He emphasized that further clarity on the bench's jurisdiction and authority was needed before the case could proceed.