The Supreme Court will resume the hearing on the review petition regarding the interpretation of Article 63A today, while the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has hinted that it may boycott the court proceedings.

Sources within the PTI’s legal team say they were adamant about the composition of the current bench, arguing that law regarding the formation of benches existed already. According to the legal team, participating in the proceedings would give legitimacy to a bench they believe should not be presiding over the case.

The sources said PTI Founder Imran Khan has also endorsed the legal team's stance. They argue that the bench not allowing them sufficient time to prepare for the case further strengthens their call for a boycott.

“By being part of the proceedings, we cannot provide legitimacy to this bench,” a source within the legal team stated.

On Wednesday, a heated scene unfolded in the Supreme Court during the hearing of the review petition challenging the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution. The hearing saw a dramatic turn of events when PTI representative Mustafain Kazmi was ordered to leave the courtroom by the chief justice after tensions escalated.

"Call the police and get this guy out," the CJP directed following a verbal exchange with Kazmi.

Threat to CJP

Mustafain Kazmi asserting the PTI's position as the affected party challenged the proceedings, stating, "There are 500 lawyers outside, let's see how the decision comes against us."

SC rejects Barrister Ali Zafar's objection to bench formation

The CJP Qazi Faez Isa-led SC bench rejected Barrister Ali Zafar's objection to the bench formation. Ali Zafar pleaded for a judgment on the bench legality before arguments on the merits of the petition, upon which the bench members deliberated among themselves inside the courtroom.

“Your objection is unanimously denied,” the SC judges announced the verdict.

Barrister Ali Zafar's arguments

Barrister Ali Zafar, representing the PTI, raised procedural objections during the hearing, arguing that the parties involved had not been properly notified. "In this case, it was necessary to issue notices to the parties," Zafar contended. He also took issue with the composition of the bench, questioning its legality. "This bench is not legal," Zafar objected, further stating that it did not comply with the requirements of the amendment ordinance.

The chief justice, in response, reiterated the court’s stance, noting that all parties had been invited to present their arguments. "We said yesterday that whoever wants to come and give arguments should do so," the CJP remarked.

'Do you want to embarrass SC judges'

Barrister Ali Zafar said Justice Mansoor Ali Shah did not come to the committee and wrote letters against it. He sought permission to read the letter of Justice Shah.

“You should read only the relevant paragraph of the letter,” Chief Justice Faez Isa said. “If you read that letter, you must also read the reply,” he pointed out and questioned whether the counsel wanted to embarrass the judges.

“Justice Mansoor spoke to the full court on the amendment ordinance,” Ali Zafar said.