Reserved seats case: SC bench dissolved after Justice Panhwar recuses himself

ISLAMABAD, JUN 27 (DNA): In a major development, Supreme Court’s (SC) Justice Salahuddin Panhwar has recused himself from being a part of the Constitutional Bench hearing review plea in the reserved seats case.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the Election Commission of Pakistan have filed review petitions against last year’s Supreme Court July 12 ruling that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was entitled to reserved seats for women and minorities in the national and provincial assemblies.

However, implementation had been stalled, with the National Assembly yet to act and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) raising objections. If enforced, this ruling would significantly bolster PTI’s parliamentary strength.

The justice said in his note that PTI-backed SIC lawyer Hamid Khan had expressed objection over the inclusion of some judges in the bench under the 26th Constitutional Amendment and he is one of them.

“The judiciary must have the people’s trust. It is necessary that none of the parties have any objection regarding the bench,” he wrote, citing it as the reason for his recusal from the hearing the plea.

“Your objection was only regarding my inclusion in the bench, overwise, we have been associated on a personal level since 2010,” Justice Panhwar said in his conversation with Khan.

He said that he was personally “hurt” by Khan’s arguments, but this was not a matter of his “personal feelings.”

He added that the allegation of bias against judges was painful. It’s not right for the public to get the impression that a judge is partial, he added.

At this, Hamid welcomed Justice Panhwar’s decision, drawing objection from Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan.

“We are currently hearing the arguments of another lawyer from the Sunni Ittehad Council in this same case,” the justice said.

Meanwhile, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail expressed his ire over Hamid, saying: “All of this has happened because of your conduct.”

The justice said that the bench had given Hamid an opportunity out of respect for him when he was not even entitled to present arguments in this case.

In response, Hamid contended that it was his “right” to present arguments in this case. At this point, the court adjourned the hearing for a short while and resumed the hearing with a 10-member bench.

It may be noted that some pleas raising objections had been filed before the hearing on the matter began on Thursday, which Hamid also discussed while giving arguments on the objections. He had objected to the increase in the number of judges in the bench under the 26th amendment, saying that the case was scheduled for hearing after “court packing”.

Among several significant changes to the country’s judicial system, the constitutional tweaks introduced in October last year also raised the number of apex court and high court judges to reduce the pendency of the cases.