Justice Isa case: Full bench defers hearing due to 'non-availability' of Justice Mazhar Alam.

Byline: Haseeb Bhatti

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred hearing a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa because Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel was not available today.

According to a court order, the hearing will resume on October 28. The court order read, "One of the members of this bench, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, has had a demise in his family and is not available today for hearing of the part-heard constitutional petition."

In these circumstances, hearing of the said petition cannot continue today. However, we are informed that Justice Miankhel shall resume his duties next week. Accordingly, the said petition along with connected matters is adjourned to October 28.

Earlier in the day, the 10-member full bench of the court was dissolved because of the judge's non-availability.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who was heading the bench, had previously said as the judges congregated that the bench had been dissolved due to the non-availability of Justice Miankhel.

"The matter of constituting a new bench is being sent to the chief justice," Justice Bandial had said.

Justice Isa's counsel, Munir A. Malik, had requested again that a full court bench be formed to hear the case, to which Justice Bandial reminded him that it is up to the chief justice to constitute a bench however he sees fit.

Initially, a seven-member bench was constituted to hear the petitions but, following the recusal of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, a request had been sent to the chief justice to reconstitute a bench to hear the case. The top judge had then constituted the current 10-member bench.

Lawyers question 'urgency'

Members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) expressed reservations over the previous development, saying that they "cannot see justice being delivered".

Talking to the media after the court's proceedings, PBC lawyers had said that the bench had been dissolved because of the absence of one judge. They added that there was no ground to reconstitute the bench as, according to a Supreme Court order, a bench that begins hearing...