The Supreme Court has completed the formation of the larger bench to hear the Article 63A review plea with the inclusion of Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

The decision came after the Practice Procedure Committee, which convened at 9am, added Justice Afghan to the bench following the absence of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah from the committee meeting.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa had originally suggested Justice Mansoor’s name for the bench, but in his absence, Justice Afghan was nominated, completing the five-member bench. The larger bench was scheduled to hear the case at 11:30am.

This development follows recent disclosure of two letters written by Justice Muneeb Akhtar, who is also part of the larger bench. In the letters, Justice Muneeb raised objections to the constitution of the bench hearing the Article 63A review plea, but clarified that his stance should not be interpreted as a recusal from the bench. His participation remains intact.

Chief Justice Isa, in earlier statements, emphasized the need for the judiciary to move forward without delays or stagnation, underscoring the urgency of resolving the matter.

On Monday, the CJP Qazi Faez Isa-led bench heard a review petition regarding the interpretation of Article 63A wherein Justice Muneeb Akhtar -- a member of the bench -- remained absent from the hearing and did not show up.

CJP Isa called the attorney general to the rostrum to read aloud a letter from Justice Muneeb Akhtar, who refused to sit on the bench formed by the present bench formation committee. The judge clarified in his letter that he was not recusing himself from the bench, but objected to its formation.

CJP Isa had responded stating that if a bench had already been constituted, any member wishing to recuse themselves from a case must do so in open court. He also remarked that they would make efforts to convince Justice Muneeb to join the bench; however, if unsuccessful, a new bench would be formed. He then postponed the hearing until tomorrow, pending Justice Muneeb's decision.

Later, Justice Muneeb Akhtar raised constitutional concerns in a letter regarding the formation of the bench for hearing the Article 63-A review plea, stating that his absence should not be misinterpreted as a recusal. 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 of Pakistan Qazi Faez 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 Miankhel in the bench, arguing that this decision violated Article 182 of the Constitution. Justice Akhtar emphasized that while Justice Miankhel was part of the original decision-making bench, his current inclusion contradicts constitutional provisions related to ad hoc judges.

Justice Akhtar expressed his inability to join the bench under the current circumstances, but clarified that his objection should not be construed as a refusal to hear the case.