The Supreme Court of Pakistan has dismissed objections raised by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) legal team during the hearing of the Article 63-A review case.

The court clarified that the Chief Justice cannot compel any judge to sit on a bench, deeming the objections raised as legally unfounded.

The court also rejected concerns regarding the late filing of the review petition and the formation of the bench, explaining that the petition was submitted 21 days before the detailed decision was issued.

Bench Formation Challenged

During the proceedings, PTI’s lawyer, Ali Zafar, objected to the composition of the bench and the inclusion of certain judges. The Supreme Court, however, reaffirmed that bench formation follows legal protocols, and the Chief Justice cannot force any judge to participate.

It was noted that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had voluntarily excused himself from the bench, after which Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan was added.

Dismissal of Out-of-Turn Review Claims

The court addressed PTI’s claim that the petition was heard out of turn, clarifying that it was scheduled appropriately and dismissing the objection. The court further pointed out that neither the Additional Attorney General nor Farooq H. Naek supported the claim, with only Ali Zafar raising objections.

The court also clarified the President’s role in filing a reference, stating that the President, as a symbol of national unity, is not required to notify every citizen when submitting a reference, reaffirming the legal process.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the Chief Justice has the authority to form benches, he is not legally obligated to provide explanations for his decisions. In this instance, however, the Chief Justice voluntarily issued a clarifying statement despite not being required to do so.