IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF PAKISTAN

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

C.P. No. 2024

Pakistan Tehreelk-i-Insaf (PTI) through its Addl. Secretary General,

Firdous Shamim Naqvi
.......Petitioner
VERSUS

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, R-Block,

Pak Secretariat, Islamabad &another
.Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Syed Ali Zafar, ASC

Syed Rifagat Hussain Shah, AOR

Counsel for the Respondents:

INDEX
Sr. Page
No. Description Date
Nos.
1 Constitution Petition 03-10-2024 01-09

2 Copy of Minutes of the 19th Meeting 23-09-2024 10-13

of the Committee
3
Copy of Minutes of the 20th Meeting 01-10-2024 14
of the Committee
Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
4 Pakistan in C.RP. No.197/2022 in 30-09-2024 15-16
C.P.No.02/2022
03-10-2024 17
Stay Application
6 Affidavit of Petitioner 03-10-2024 18
7 Affidavit of Service (AOR) 03-10-2024 19
Certified that the paper book as bound iscomplete and correct

Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah

Advocate-on-Record
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad
For the Petitioner
Dated:-03-10-2024
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction)

Constitution Petition No. 2024

Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) through its Additional Secretary

General, Firdous Shamim Nagvi, Office # Plot No.1, Street No.32,
Sector G-8/4, Islamabad.
.Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, R

Block, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad.

2. The Registrar Supreme Court/Secretary, Practice and Procedure

Committee, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad.
..Respondents

CONSTITUTION PETITION UNDER ARTICLE

184(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.
Respectfully Sheweth: -

1 That through this instant petition, the Petitioner assails the decisions
dated 30/09/2024 and 01/10/2024 taken by the Chief Justice of
Pakistan, Mr. Justice Aminuddin Khan and Respondent No.2
purporting to act as the "Committee formed under the Supreme
Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 ("Practice and Procedure

Act').
FACTS

2 That on 21/04/2023 the Practice and Procedure Act was enacted.

Section 2 thereof read as under: -

"2. Constitution of Benches.-(1) Every cause, appeal or

matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and
 disposed of by aBench constituted by the Conmittee
comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two next
most senior Judges, in order of seniority.
(2) Soon after commencement of this Act, the
Committee constituted under sub-section (1)) shall hold
its first meeting to determine its procedure, including for
holding meetings and constitution of Benches etc:

Provided that, till such time the procedure is determined

under this sub-section, the meeting of the Commnittee for
tlhe purposes of sub-section (1) shall be convened by the
Chief Justice or other two members of the Committee, as
the casemay be.

(3) The decisions of the Committee shall be by

majority."

and
3. That as can be seen the Committee envisaged in the Practice
Procedure Act is a three member Committee. There is neither a

provision for functioning of this Committee with a minimum

the actions
quorum in the law,nor is there a validation clause saving
member of the
of the Committee in case the same are taken while any
Committee is unavailable to attend its meetings.

4 That thereafter on 19/09/2024, the President of Pakistan

Ordinance")
promulgated Ordinance No.VIII of 2024 ("Amending
which substituted Section 2(1) as follows: -

Supreme
"(1) Every cause, appeal or matter before the
Court shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench
cOnstituted by the committee comprising the Chief Justice
of Pakistan, the next most senior Judge of the Supreme
Court and a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the
Chief Justice of Pakistan, from time to time."

the Chief Justice

5 That after the Amnending Ordinance came into force,
Akhtar
reconstituted the Committee replacing Mr. Justice Munib
with Mr. Justice Aminuddin Khan.
 6 That on 23/09/2024, the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Aminuddin
Khan along with the Registrar of the Supreme Court namely Ms.
Jazeela Aslam sat together in a purported 19th meeting of the
Committee. As is evident, the senior puisne judge was not present in
this meeting. That being the case, the Committee as envisaged in the
Practice and Procedure Act was not present at the purported 19h
meeting. Therefore, this meeting could and cannot be considered as a
meeting of the Comnmittee under Practice and Procedure Act.

7. That the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Aminuddin Khan and the Registrar
purported to constitute a Bench comprising of the Chief Justice, Mr.
Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan
Mandokhail and Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khail to hear Civil
Review Petition No.197 of 2022 in CP No.2/2022 along with
Reference No.1 of 2022 on 30/09/2024.

8. That on 30/09/2024, when the case was called, only four Judges
entered the Court room. Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar was not one of the
judges who had come into the Court room. After the judges took
their seats, the Chief Justice informed the Court that Mr. Justice

Munib Akhtar had expressed his inability to attend the hearing

through a letter addressed to the Registrar. Thereafter, the Chief
Justice proceeded to read the following paragraph from his letter: -

"4. The matter has to be considered taking into account

the overall circumstances pertaining to the particular
bench formed by the reconstituted committee. On such
assessnent I must express my inability, at the present
time, to be part of the bench constituted to hear the CRP.
It may be noted that this is not a recusal and my present
inability should not be misconstrued or misrepresented
as such. Please ensure that this note is placed on the file
of the CRP soas to becomne part of its record."
 9
That after reading the afore-noted portion of Justice Munib's letter,
the Chief Justice proceeded to dictate something as a judge would
when dictating a judicial order. This dictation was later uploaded on
the Hon'ble Supreme Court's website purporting to be a judicial
order. However, on the next day, the Judges hearing CRP
No.197/2022 remarked that the same be considered "minutes of
meeting". The following portion isrelevant: -

"4. Munib Akhtar, Thas addressed a letter to the

Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated
30 September 2024, a copy whereof as per his
direction has been placed on record. Munib Akhtar,
Jconcludes his letter by stating, I must express my
inability, at the present time, to be part of the bench
constituted to hear the CRP. It may be noted that
this is not a recusal and my present inability
should not be nisconstrued or misinterpreted as
such.' However, today Munib Akhtar, J headed
Bench No.III and conducted cases, and we were
together inthe Judges tea room. Therefore, we direct
the Registrar to place before hishislordship the
instant order with the request to lordship to
join the Bench. However, if his lordship does not do
of the
so the Committee constituted under section 2
2023 is
Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act,
required to appoint another Judge in his place on
theBench."

the Chief Justice and

10. That on the very next day i.e. 01/10/2024,
together and
Justice Aminuddin Khan and the Registrar sat
CRP No.197/2022
illegally reconstituted the Bench hearing
with Mr. Justice Naeem
replacing Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
decision was made in
Akhtar Afghan. Itwill be noted that this
judge. All three members as
the absence of the senior puisne
were not present on
required in the Practice and Procedure Act
this decision cannot be
this date also and, resultantly,
envisaged in the
considered to be a decision of the Committee
Practice and Procedure Act.
11. That thereafter a bench purporting to be constituted under the
Practice and Procedure Act began hearing CRP No.197/2022.
The proceedings so far have been highly unusual in that the
bench has refused to issue notices to the parties arrayed in the
CRP yet is hearing counsels on the merits of the case on a day
to-day basis. The counsel contesting the CRP objected to the
constitution of the bench, however, the bench continued to
proceed in the matter.

12. That CRP No.197/2022 impugnes the opinion dated

17/05/2022 of this Hon'ble Court rendered in Reference No.1

of 2022. The Hon'ble Court had opined that any votes cast by

members of a parliamentary party against directions of such

party in a vote of confidence or no confidence of a Prime
Minister or Chief Minister or cast in relation to a constitutional
amendment or money bill shall not be counted.

13. That it is well-understood that elections to the Assemblies and

the Senate are contested primarily by political parties. The

contestants of such elections vie to obtain party tickets from
such political parties and then contest elections representing to
the electorate that they support the manifestos and policies of
such parties. The people of Pakistan vote for these candidates
understanding that they support the party policies of the
political parties whose ticket they contest on. Therefore,
whether or not these persons as members of the Assemblies are
able to vote against the manifestos and policies of the political
parties is a matter which has importance to the entire
population of Pakistan. That being the case, it is a matter of
public importance.
14. That this matter of public importance relates to the
enforcement
of the right to associate and freedom of speech. Furthermore,
this issue is fundamentally linked with the contours of
democracy. Living in a properly functioning democracy has
been held by the Supreme Court to be a part of the right to life.

15. That access to justice and the independence of judiciary are

recognized as fundamental rights. Furthermore, the functioning
of the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon the directionsof a set of
persons not authorized to make such directions is a grave issue
of public importance.

16. That the decisions dated 30/09/2024 and 01/10/2024

purporting to be of the Committee formed under the Practice
and Procedure Act are illegal, Corumnon judice and

unconstitutional on inter alia the following

GROUNDS: -

(A) That it is evident from Section 2(1) of the Act that the
committee in question is a three-member collegiate body.
The rationale for entrusting the responsibility of bench
formation to such a collegiate body is to ensure that three
independent minds are engaged in the decision-making
process. Only after the collective consideration of these
three individuals can benches of the Supreme Court be
constituted, and cases be fixed before them. It is a matter

of public record that Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah,

one of the three members of the committee, was not
present at the so-called committee meetings held on 23
09-2024 and 01-10-2024, during which it was decided by
the Chief Justice and his nominee to schedule the titled
 Ireview petition before the relevant benches.
Consequently, the decision to fix the titled review petition
before the relevant benches do not constitute the
Committee as required under Section 2(1) of the Practice
and Procedure Act. This is due to the fact that only two
members of the committee were present at the said
meeting, and the full membership of the committee was
not in attendance. Therefore, both meetings are liable to
be declared illegal and the decisions made thereunder
corum-non-judice, ab initio and non-est.

(B) That it is well-established that a bench once constituted

cannot be reconstituted unless a member of said bench

recuses himself during a hearing thereof through a

judicial order. Not only did Mr. Justice Muneeb Akhtar

not recuse himself from the hearing, he is on record

stating that his inability to sit on the bench till the legality
thereof is determined should not be misconstrued as a

recusal. This being the case, there was no occasion for the
remaining four members of the so-called bench to

conduct a hearing on 30/09/2024. Furthermore, the

minutes of the meeting of the said order are completely

illegal and ineffective as they have been issued

purportedly as a judicial order by an incomplete bench.

(C) That in the minutes of the meeting, direction has been

made that an attempt shall be made to pursue it Mr.
 Justice Munib Akhtar to ioin the bench and hear uie ca
fixed before it. It was further stated that if does not jon

the bench, he shallbe replaced with another judge. It is

submitted that the incomplete bench has no legal

authority to make such a direction. For this reason also,

the minutes of the meeting and the directions contained

therein are liable to be declared illegal.

and
(D) That the meeting purporting to be of Practice
Procedure Committee dated 01/10/2024 was held in

minutes of the
pursuarnce of the directions made in the
minutes of the
meeting dated 30/09/2024. Since the
directions made
meeting dated 30/09/2024 and the
built thereupon is
therein are illegal, the superstructure
along with. For this reason also,
also illegal and must fall
is illegal and of no legal
the decision dated 01/10/2024

effect.

any
trite law that where the foundation of
(E) That it is
the entire superstructure
proceedings or action is illegal,
the
must fall therewith. Therefore, all of
built thereupon
taken by the illegally
proceedings and decisions
liable
CRP No.197/2022 are
constituted benches hearing
quashed.
illegal, set aside and
to be declared
PRAYER

In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that: -

) the decisions dated 23/09/2024 and 01/10/2024 taken by the Chief

Justice and Mr. Justice Aminuddin Khan along with the Registrar of
the Supreme Court be declared illegal;

(i) any acts, proceedings or decisions taken, orders passed or judgments

rendered in pursuance of the decisions dated 23/09/2024 and
01/10/2024 are illegal and of no legal effect;

fit in the
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
circumstances of the case may also be granted.

Drawn and Settled by: Filed by:

SYED ALI ZAFAR

Advocate-on-Record
Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan Supreme Court of Pakistan

Supreme Court Rules 1980

Certificate under Order XXXV, Rule 6, of the
being filed by:the Petitioner on the
It is certified that this is the first petition certified that the Petitioner has
also
subject matter before this Court. It is
on the said subject matter before any
not filed any Constitutional Petition
High Court.

Dated:-03-10-2024
 Minutes of the 19th mceting of the Committee
Present: Justice Qazi Faez lsa, Chief Justice /Chairman
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Judge/Member
Ms,Jazeela Aslam,
Registrar/Secretary
The 19h meeting of the Committee constituted under section 2 of
the Supreme Court (Practicc and Procedurc) Act, 2023 (the Act) was
held on 23 September 2024 at 4 pm in the Chamber of Hon'ble Chief
Justice.

2, The meeting was earlier scheduled on Friday, 20 September 2024

but the Secretary informed that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah will not
be able to attend due to his priorcommitment. Therefore, the meeting
was adjourned for today, that is, 23 September 2024. The Secretary
informs that she has just received a letter from Justice Syed Mansoor Ali
Shah informing the Secretary that he regrets that he will not be
participating in today's meeting, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah did not
provide a copy of the said letter to the members, a copy of which was
provided by the Secretary in the meeting.
3 Since the Act (both as framed and as amended by Ordinance No.
VIII of 2024) stipulates that urgent matters are to be heard within
fourteen days, therefore, the following decisions were made:

Constitution of Benches:
S # Case No. Decision by the Committee
1. CA No. 725 of 2020, These cases be fixed before a
etc. Bench headed
by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali
Shah, who is
presiding over a three-member Bench, and
since Justice Munib Akhtar is heading a
two-member Bench it will be appropriate
that the following five Hon'ble Judges hear
the case as it would not disrupt any other
Bench:

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah

Justice Munib Akhtar
Justice Ayesha A. Malik
Justice Athar Minallah
Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
CP Nos. 6 and 8 of
2020 These cases were being heard by a Bernch
comprising of Umar Ata Bandial, CJ (as he
then was), Justice ljaz ul Ahsan and
Amin-ud-Din Khan. It was last heardJustice
on 13
 July 2023, therefore, it be fixed before any
three-member Bench of which Justice Amin
ud-Din Khan is a member.
3. HRC No. 10322-P of It was decided that this case be fixed before
2009 any three-member Bench.

4, CRP No, 197 of CP No. 2/2022 alongwith Reference No.

2022 in CP No. 2 of1/2022 was heard by a Bench comprising of
2022 a/w Reference Umar Ata Bandial, CJ (as he then was),
No, 1 of 2022 Justice ljaz ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam
Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and was
decided on 17 May 2022. Review of the said
judgment has been sought through CRP No.
197/2022. The review petition is pending
since over two years and four months.
Therefore, it should be fixed immediately
before the available Judges of the said
Bench; at the relevant time Justice Mazhar
Alam Khan Miankhel was the senior most
amongst them.

Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel is now

an ad hoc Judge, which the Constitution
says, 'shall have the same power and
jurisdiction as a Judge of the Supreme Court
as stipulated in Article 182. Therefore, a
Bench be constituted comprising of the
following five-member Bench:
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa
Justice Munib Akhtar
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel

To be fixed on Monday, 30 September 2024.

5. CP No. 11 of 2020, These cases involve interpretation of

etc,
criminal law, They should be fixed before the
following Bench:
Justice Yahya Afridi
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Justice Shahid Waheed
Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan

be fixed before a Bench

6 CA No, 251 of 2021, These cases
etc. comprising of the fllowing:
Justice Amin-ul-Din Khan
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Justice Shahid Waheed
 Justice Irfan Saadat Khan

7 CPLA No, 473 of These cases be fixed before a Bench

2024, etc. comprising of the following:
8 CMA Nos, 11210 of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
2019, ctc. in CA No. Justice Munib Akhtar
1874 of 2007, etc. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
Justice Athar Minallah
9. CANo, 1352 of Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
2021, cetc.

10. CANo. 1381 of

2018, etc.

11. CP No. 14 of 2023, CP No. 14/2023 was filed by Mr. Abid

etc. Shahid Zuberi regarding constitution of
inquiry commission to probe into the
veracity of the audio leaks. Since the inquiry
commission was headed by Justice Qazi
Faez Isa (as he then was) and another
member of the commission was Justice
Naeem Akhtar Afghan, then the CJ of High
Court of Balochistan and one of the alleged
audios referred to Justice Munib Akhtar
these Judges cannot hear it. This and
connected cases be heard by the following
five-member Bench:

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah

Justice Yahya Afridi
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Justice Musarrat Hilali

12. CRP No, 444 of This review petition challenges the order
2018 in CP No, 38 dated 4 July 2018 which was heard and
of 2018 decided by Mian Saqib Nisar, CJ, Justice
Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and
Justice Munib Akhtar, Since Justice Munib
Akhtar is the only remaining Judge it be
fixed before the following Bench:
Justice Munib Akhtar
Justice Yahya Afridi
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Justice Athar Minallah,

The order, the review whereof is sought, is

13. Crl,R.P. No. 91 of passed by
dated 15 December 2021 and was
2022 in Crl.A, No, Justice
373 of 2021 Justice Amin-ud-Din Kh¡n and
it be
Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ, therefore,
fixed before the following Bench:
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
 /3
Justice Munib Akhtar
Justice Yahya Afridi
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail

14. CA No. 368 of 2018 In this case vide order dated 9 February
2022 reference was made to two
contradictory judgments comprising of three
Judges cach and it was ordered to be fixed,
before a larger Bench, therefore, it be heard
by the following Bench:
Justice Yahya Afridi
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Justice Shahid Waheed
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan

am.
4. All larger Bench cases to be fixed at 11.30

Secretary
Islamabad, 23 September 2024.

Qazi Faez Isa,

Chief Justice/Chairman.

Amin-ud-Din Khan,
Judge/Member.
 Minutes of the 20th Mecting, of the Comnmittce
CRI No 197/2022 and connected matters 14
This caso was fixed on Monday 30 September 2024 before a
Bench comprising of thc following:
QaziFacz Isa, Chicf Justice
Munib Akhtar, J
Amin-ud-Din Khan, J
Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J.
2. Since one of the Hoh'ble members of the Bench., namely, Hon?ble Justice Munib
Akhtar
had cxpressed his inability to attend for reasons mentioned in his letter dated 30
September
2024 cases were adjourned and the Registrar was directed to
request his lordship to join the
Bench.The Registrar complied with the stated order and conveyed the request. on the sarme day,
i.e., 30 Septeinber 2024, to the Hon'ble Justice Munib Akhtar, However, his lordship by another
letter of the same date i.., 30 September 2024 reproduced the stated note of the Registrar and
reiterated his earlier position.
3 The Registrar put up a note the above mentioned letter of Hon'ble Justice Munib Akhtar
before the Chief Justice on 30h September 2024who wrote the following thereon:
"Since Justice Munib Akhtar has not conceded to the request to take his place on
the Bench a meeting of the Committee constituted under the Supreme Court
(Practice and Procedüre) Act, 2023is convened at 9 am on Tuesday, 1 October
2024 to consider his lordship'ssubstitute.
In this regard I propose that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah to be on the said
Bench. Members may be accordingly informed immediately. Copy of the said
CRP may also be sent to his lordship today.
Sd/
30/9/2024"
4. The 1meeting of the Committee was convened at 9 am today. The nembers waited for
Hon'ble Justice Syed Mans0or Ali Shah, however, his lordship did nat atfend the meeting,
therefore, his SPS, Mr. Sadagat Hussain, was contacted telephonically and he, after inquiring
member of the said
from hi_ lordship, stated that he will not be participating nor wants to be a
Bench.
of the Bench on
5 Therefore, the Committee decided toappoint the second senior member
Akhtar Afghan, on the Bench, as his
the Chief Justice's Bench,namely, Hon'ble Justice Naeem
conclude at 11 am and work of no
lordship would be available since Bench No. 1 work would
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan was
other Bench willbe disturbed. During the meeting Hon'ble
that he is available.
.asked about his availability and his lordship informed

Secretarý
Islamabad, 1Ociober 2024

Qazi Faez Isa,

Chief justice/Chairman,

Amir--DirKhan,
Judge/Member
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Review Jurisdiction)

Present:
Justice Qazi Facz Isa, CJ
Justice Munib Akhtar
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel

Civil Review Petition No. 197 of 2022 in

Constitution Petition No. 2 of 2022

Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Petitioner

through its President.
Versus
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Interior, Respondents
Islamabad and others.

Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, ASC

For the Petitioner:
Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, ASC

For the Federation: Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AGP

For the Respondents

Syed Ali Zafar, ASC
(for PTI): Mr. Haris Azmat, ASC
(for PMLN):
Date of Hearing: 30.09.2024

ORDER
Constitution Petitions were heard
The Presidential Reference and two
by a Bench comprising of the
and decided by a majority of three to two
following:
Umar Ata Bandial, CJ
ljaz ul Ahsan, J
Mazhar Alam Khan Mianlkhel, J
Munib Akhtar, Jand
Jamal Khan Mandokhail,J.
and
was authored by Munib Akhtar,J
The majority judgment
in the
and Ijaz ul Ahsan, J. The Judges
concurred by Umar Ata Bandial, CJ Mandokhail, JJ,
Miankhel and Jamal Khan
minority, Mazhar Alam Khan
Judgments/Opinion.
wrote their separate dissenting
Pakistan (SCBA) filed Civil
Supreme Court Bar Association of
2. The by Ch.
No. 197/2022 on 23 June 2022. It is pointed out
Review Petition
Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan, that Mr.
Aamir Rehman. learned
CRP No. 197/2022.

Mansoor Usman Awan, ASC who was then representing the SCBA is now
the Attorney-General for Pakistan, therefore, he will represent the
Federation of Pakistan. The incumbent and the then Presidents of the
SCBA are in attendance and confirm the samne.

3. The learned Syed Ali Zafar states that he had sent his power of
Khan of Pakistan
attorney to be engaged as counsel of Mr. Imran Ahmed
not been
Tehreek-i-Insaf who had filed CP No. 9 of 2022 but the same has
petitioner. He
received back and he may be permitted to represent the said
is allowed to do so.

the Registrar of the

4 Munib Akhtar, J has addressed a letter to
2024, a copy whereof as
Supremne Court of Pakistan dated 30 September
record. Munib Akhtar, J concludes his
per his direction has been placed on
the present time, to be part
letter by stating, Imust express my inability, at
CRP. It may be noted that this is not a
of the bench constituted to hear the
misconstrued
inability should not be
recusal and my present
Akhtar, J headed Bench No.
misinterpreted as such.'However, today Munib
were together in the Judges tea
room.
III and conducted cases, and we
place before his lordship the instant
Therefore, we direct the Registrar to
to join the Bench. However, if his
order with the request to his lordship
of the
Committee constituted under section 2
lordship does not do so the
Act, 2023 is required to appoint
Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure)
Bench.
another Judge in his place on the
am.
Tuesday, 10ctober 2024 at 11.30
5 To cone up tomorrow, that is,
Chief Justice

Judge

Judge

Judge

Judge
Islamabad
30.09.2024
(Farrukh)
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction)
CMANo. /2024
IN
CP. No. /2024

Pakistan Tehreek-i-nsaf (PTI) through its Addl.General, Firdous Shamim

Naqvi
......Petitioner
VERSUS

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, R-Block,

Pak Secretariat, Islamabad &another
.Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER

ORDER V RULE 218) READ WITH ORDER XXXIII RULE 6 OF THE
PAKSITAN SUPREME COURT RULES, 1980 STAY APPLICATION

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the applicant has filed the accompanying petition, the contents
of which may kindly be read as an integral part of this application.

2. That the applicant has a prima facie. good case and there is every
likelihood of suCcess.

3. That the balance of convenience lies in favor of the applicant.

4 That if interim relief is not granted, the applicant shall suffer an

irreparable harm.

PRAYER

that the decisions

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed
proceedings
dated 23/09/2024 and 01/10/2024 be suspended and any
stayed.
being taken in pursuance thereof be

Advocate-on-Record
For the Petitioner

Dated:-03-10-2024