November 25, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Tuesday heard two separate appeals dealing with the appointment of retired judges to election tribunals and the recent amendments to the Practice and Procedure Ordinance. Both matters came before the same bench and involved extensive discussion about the court’s jurisdiction and the questions that arise when determining the proper composition of a bench that is required to hear such appeals.
A five-member larger bench headed by Justice Aamer Farooq first took up the appeal challenging the appointment of retired judges to election tribunals. When the hearing began, counsel Sameer Khosa argued that Justice Aamer Farooq had previously dealt with an initial petition of a similar nature while serving as a High Court judge. According to Khosa, this earlier involvement raised an important preliminary question regarding whether the current bench was eligible to hear the matter. His submission focused mainly on the idea that a judge who had already expressed a view or ruled in a related case might not be in a position to sit on a fresh appeal involving comparable issues.
During the arguments, Justice Baqar Najafi asked whether the intra-court appeal itself was even maintainable. Justice Aamer Farooq then clarified the record and explained that the petition Khosa was referring to had been filed with objections and had not resulted in any ruling from him on any petition brought by the current appellant. He said that even if a judge had delivered a decision in a different matter, that would not automatically affect the judge’s ability to hear a fresh case, particularly when the earlier petition had not been adjudicated on its merits.
Khosa told the bench that he had already informed his client about the scope of the constitutional court’s powers as well as the independence with which the court exercised those powers. He said he required further instructions from his client before continuing. The court accepted this request for time, and with no further arguments to be made, the case was adjourned indefinitely.
Later in the day, the same five-member larger bench heard an appeal filed by Barrister Gohar challenging the Practice and Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance. This hearing also involved extensive discussion, especially on whether the bench was properly constituted for this type of appeal and how the rules governing such appeals should be interpreted.
Khosa opened his arguments by submitting that a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court had earlier delivered an initial decision in the matter. He added that the constitutional court had adopted the Supreme Court Rules, which, according to him, would not allow a five-member bench to hear an appeal of this nature. In his view, because the appeal had been filed under the Practice and Procedure Act, the law required that it be heard by a larger bench, and anything less would not meet the statutory standard.
Responding to these arguments, the Additional Attorney General said the constitutional court’s decision might apply to the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution, but the constitutional court itself functioned as a separate body. Because of that distinction, he argued that the number of judges hearing the appeal did not affect the court’s ability to proceed, and that the court was fully empowered to determine the size of its own bench.
Khosa repeated that the law governing the appeal required it to be heard by a larger bench. Justice Aamer Farooq observed that, at least for the limited purpose of issuing notices, the court did not see any legal barrier. After the arguments concluded, the court issued a notice to the government on the appeal challenging the Practice and Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance.
Meanwhile, in the same building at the Islamabad High Court, the hearing of the degree case against Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri was postponed without any proceedings. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Azam Khan had been scheduled to hear the case, but the bench did not arrive in the courtroom until 1 pm. Court staff then informed lawyers that all cases listed for the day had been adjourned.