Urdu Report Desk
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has raised questions about the impartiality of proceedings in the Monal restaurant case conducted by a Supreme Court bench led by former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa, saying certain observations were based on matters that were not part of the judicial record.
The observations were made in a 44-page detailed judgment issued by a three-judge FCC bench headed by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi. The court overturned the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision ordering the demolition of Monal restaurant at Pir Sohawa.
Monal case background
A Supreme Court bench led by Qazi Faez Isa had dismissed a review petition filed by the Monal restaurant owner against the demolition order and made certain observations concerning the owner.
In July, the FCC, through a short order, allowed appeals filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI), effectively overturning the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling and permitting the Monal restaurant to remain.
Concerns over judicial observations
In its detailed judgment, the FCC expressed concern over the manner in which the Supreme Court proceedings had been conducted, particularly observations concerning the alleged personal relationships, private affairs and political associations of the parties.
The court said the Supreme Court, as the country’s then apex court, was expected to decide the dispute solely on the basis of the pleadings, evidence available on the record and the relevant law.
The FCC stated that judicial findings and observations must arise from the material before the court rather than matters based on the personal knowledge or information of the bench hearing the case.
Personal matters and political associations
The FCC observed that references to alleged personal relationships, private affairs and political associations of the parties did not appear to have been established through admissible evidence forming part of the judicial record.
According to the judgment, incorporating such matters into judicial reasoning could create a perception that the dispute had not been adjudicated with complete detachment from unnecessary considerations.
The court stressed that public confidence in the administration of justice depends on the assurance that every litigant will be judged exclusively on the basis of law and evidence presented before the court.
Recusal and impartiality
The FCC observed that when a bench has personal knowledge of disputed facts or circumstances concerning a party, or when such knowledge could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of unfairness, judicial propriety requires the judge to decline to hear the matter.
The court noted that judges of the superior judiciary have the discretion to recuse themselves in appropriate cases to preserve both the appearance and reality of impartial justice.
The FCC further noted that despite recording observations based on matters stated to be within their personal knowledge or information, the Supreme Court bench proceeded to adjudicate the controversy.
Fair trial concerns
The FCC said the observations of the Supreme Court bench suggested that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted may have given rise to a reasonable apprehension concerning impartiality.
The court held that, in the circumstances, the proceedings might not be regarded as having fully satisfied the requirements of a fair trial.
The judgment stated that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A includes the right to a proper hearing before a competent, independent and unbiased forum.
Public confidence in justice
The FCC further observed that the Supreme Court bench ought not to have heard the case in view of the high traditions of the institution and the established principle that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done.
The court said the legitimacy of the judicial process depends not only on actual impartiality but also on maintaining public confidence that justice has been administered fairly, objectively and without predisposition.
The FCC concluded that the observations in question were legally unsustainable because they were unsupported by the judicial record and had no discernible connection with determining the legal issues involved in the case.
