ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday closed the suo motu case regarding the grant of an additional 20 marks to a Hafiz-e-Quran student for admission to an MBBS/BDS degree programme.
The six-member bench, led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Mazahar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, announced the verdict shortly after a brief hearing.
During the proceedings, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council argued that it was not awarding extra marks at the time when the suo motu notice was issued.
At this, Justice Akhtar observed that it meant that the suo motu case was no longer relevant.
It was the case in which a three-member bench, comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Shahid Waheed, had earlier issued a 2-1 majority verdict, calling for a suspension of cases being heard under Article 184(3) of the Constitution until amendments to the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s discretionary powers to form benches had been made.
A majority verdict of 2-1 was issued on March 29 by a three-member bench, comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Shahid Waheed, ordering the postponement of cases being heard under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The order stated that the cases should be postponed until amendments are made in the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the discretionary powers enjoyed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan to form benches.
The ruling was made in a suo motu case concerning the grant of 20 marks to Hafiz-e-Quran while seeking admission to an MBBS/BDS degree. Justice Waheed wrote a dissenting note against the order, stating that the points raised and discussed in the order were not relevant to the case.
The court explained that neither the Constitution nor the rules granted the chief justice or the registrar the power to make special benches, select judges who will be on other benches, and decide the cases that they will hear. The order stated that important matters arising from Article 184(3) of the Constitution had significant consequences on the economy, politics, and other aspects of the lives of Pakistanis.
The order further explained that there were three categories of cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The first category is when a formal application is filed seeking enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the second is when (suo motu) notice is taken by the Supreme Court or its judges, and the third is cases of immense constitutional importance and significance, which may also be those in the first and second categories. The court held that Order XXV of the rules only attends to the first category of cases.
The order further explained that there was no procedure prescribed for the second and third category of cases, adding that the situation was exacerbated as there was no appeal against a decision under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The order stated that the Constitution does not grant the chief justice unilateral and arbitrary power to decide the above matters. It added that collective determination by the chief justice and the judges of the Supreme Court could also not be assumed by an individual.
