SC turns down Sindh CM’s plea for larger bench in disqualification case.

ISLAMABAD   -   The Supreme Court of Paki­stan Tuesday turned down a plea to con­stitute a larg­er bench for hearing the review petition for disqualifi­cation of Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah on the basis of holding dual nation­ality and Iqama

In this regard, an application was moved on behalf of the Sindh chief minister before the apex court requesting it to con­stitute a larger bench in place of the current three-judge bench that is hearing a review petition against Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah. However, the bench, consisting of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Syed Man­soor Ali Shah and Justice Mu­nib Akhtar, conducted hearing of the review petition moved by Roshan Ali Baririo seeking Shah’s disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitu­tion for possessing dual nation­ality and having an iqama or work permit. Baririo is Shah’s political rival and rejected his plea to constitute a larger bench while it deferred the hearing in review petition till date in office.

During the course of pro­ceedings, Advocate Hamid Khan, counsel for Shah, ap­peared before the court and pleaded for the formation of a larger bench to take up the matter. Chief Justice Bandial responded that formation of a larger bench was now history.

It was January 23, 2019 when the apex court had rejected a petition while questioning the returning officer’s (RO) April 6, 2013 order which disquali­fied Shah by stating that RO was not a court of law. The ap­plication seeking larger bench was moved on behalf of the chief minister Sindh highlight­ing that one of the members in the bench was a member of the election tribunal who, instead of hearing the case, should have recused himself from the bench.

The application highlighted that Justice Yahya Afridi was a member of the bench which had rejected the original peti­tion in Jan 23, 2019, now be­ing considered by the court through the review petition.

It said that Justice Afridi is not a member of the present bench and therefore it should be considered that the bench has not been constituted prop­erly to hear the review petition. He contended that the review petition should not proceed in the absence of Justice Afridi. According to the application, it was a requirement of Order 26, Rule 8, of the Supreme Court Rules that as far as practicable, the plea for the review should be fixed before the same bench which earlier delivered the judg­ment sought to be reviewed.

Shah adopted the stance that since Justice Afridi continues to be a judge of the Supreme Court and thus available to be a mem­ber of the bench, he should be included in the bench. His ap­plication also cited the 2021 Justice Qazi Faez Isa judgment in which the apex court had held that in the constitution of a review bench, the CJP should ensure substantial compliance with Order 26 Rule 8 by includ­ing the author judge, if avail­able in the review bench, but where it was not practicable to do so then there was no obliga­tion to have exactly the same judges in the bench.

The applicant also reminded the court that a separate appli­cation by him for the formation of a larger bench was already pending before it. He said that it is clear in view of the circum­stances and importance of the matter that a larger bench ought to be constituted. In the original petition, Baririo had pleaded that Shah was allegedly neither righteous nor sagacious and therefore should be disqualified for life on the grounds that he was earlier disqualified for hav­ing dual nationality.