ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court turned down the 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.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Muneeb Akhtar on Tuesday heard Roshan Ali Buriro’s petition to disqualify Sindh CM under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution for holding dual nationality, as well as, having an Iqama.
Advocate Hamid Khan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, requested the bench to form a larger bench. However, the chief justice said constituting a larger bench is now history. Upon that the counsel contended that Justice Yahya Afridi, who was part of the main bench which had decided the case of his client, is not in the bench hearing the review petition. He said Justice Yahya should be included in this bench.
The chief justice, accepting his plea said Justice Yahya is available and can be included in the bench, hearing the review petition.
The Supreme Court on November 6, 2019, by a majority of two to one, had issued a notice to Murad Ali Shah on the review petition. On January 23 that year, a SC bench, also headed by Justice Bandial had rejected a petition of the same petitioner on the grounds that the political rivals should seek remedy from appropriate forums and also questioned the April 6, 2013 order of the returning officer (RO) that had disqualified Murad Ali Shah under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution by stating that the RO was not a court of law.
Justice Bandial, who had authored the verdict, also noted that Murad Ali Shah had applied for renouncing his citizenship on September 29, 2012, and got a certificate from the Canadian authorities about the cancellation of his citizenship on July 18, 2013.
The judgment had noted that the RO in his order did not mention any finding in terms of wrongdoings and, therefore, his order was ineffective to impose a disqualification under Article 62(1) (f). Justice Bandial had rejected the plea with an observation that the chief minister did not suffer from a lifetime bar under Article 62(1) (f) and, therefore, he was eligible to contest the 2018 general elections.
Roshan Ali in his review petition requested the apex court to set aside the January 23, 2019 order since it contained errors of law and facts apparent on the face of the record, which had crept into the impugned order resulting in serious miscarriage of justice.
“Thus, the Jan 23 is liable to be reviewed in the interest of justice, especially when one of the members of the bench had held that it was a fit case for the grant of leave against the July 20, 2018 order of the Sindh High Court,” the review petition argued.
The petitioner asked whether a judge of the high court, while acting as a member of the election tribunal and having passed an order which was substantially relevant in the subsequent proceedings and after having appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, could rely upon and interpret his own earlier order in a way that would nullify an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court. The case was adjourned for an indefinite period.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022