Justice Muneeb Akhtar has raised constitutional concerns in a letter regarding the formation of the bench for the Article 63-A revision case, stating that his absence should not be misinterpreted as a refusal to hear the case.
The contents of his letter outlined various objections and questions about the bench’s formation under the Judges Committee Amendment Ordinance of September 23.
Justice Akhtar clarified that while the case was scheduled to be heard by a five-member larger bench, he raised concerns about the Chief Justice's role in heading the bench.
In the letter, he questioned why Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, who had previously suggested that the bench should be led by a senior judge, had now taken charge of it without explaining the reasons.
Additionally, the letter mentions the inclusion of ad hoc judge Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel in the bench, arguing that this decision violated Article 182 of the Constitution. Justice Akhtar emphasized that while Justice Mazhar Alam was part of the original decision-making bench, his current inclusion contradicts constitutional provisions related to ad hoc judges.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar expressed his inability to join the bench under the current circumstances but clarified that his apology should not be construed as a refusal to hear the case.
He requested that his letter be added to the official file for the Article 63-A revision case and that his absence not be misinterpreted.
