ISLAMABAD: The Sup­reme Court on Wednesday cautioned a petitioner to either ensure his presence in the courtroom on Thursday (today) to plead his petition challenging the appointment of a senior judge of the same court, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, or face action.

The observation came when the petition of Riaz Hanif Rahi came up for hearing before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar. On Thursday, the court is to decide whether the case against the appointment of Justice Isa as chief justice of the Balochistan High Court and his elevation to the Supreme Court is maintainable or the court will simply reject the petition, which has created quite a controversy in the country.

On March 13, the chief justice during a chamber hearing had overruled an objection raised by the Supreme Court registrar on the petition of Advocate Rahi last year with a directive to fix it before a bench to decide the maintainability of the petition.

On Tuesday, a day ahead of the scheduled hearing, the petitioner filed an application requesting the court to postpone the case “for some good day”. He stated that he would not be available in Islamabad due to the medical treatment of his father.

Mr Rahi stated that he had received a phone call from his father at 9:40am on Tuesday who informed him that he was seriously ill. The application did not state from which ailment his father was suffering and whether he was leaving for his hometown Rahim Yar Khan to visit his father or not.

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the case may kindly be adjourned for some good day, in the interest of justice,” the application said.

In his petition, Mr Rahi has sought a declaration from the apex court against the notifications of Aug 5, 2009 and Sept 1, 2014 pertaining to the appointment of Justice Isa in the Balochistan High Court and the Supreme Court, respectively.

The petition argues that there exists no provision in the Constitution for direct appointment of the chief justice of a province and the guidance provided in Articles 196 and 200 of the Constitution was not followed (in Justice Isa’s case).

Likewise, it adds, the chief minister’s advice under Article 105 of the Constitution was mandatory for the appointment of Justice Isa as chief justice of the high court and that the acting governor was not competent to forward the name of the judge as chief justice of the high court. Because the appointment of the acting governor himself was a stopgap arrangement to look after day-to-day affairs as held in many judgements, including the judges’ case (Al Jihad Trust case) of 1996.

The seniority of many other judges of the Supreme Court, who held the office in the respective high court prior to the appointment of Justice Isa, has been affected, the petition argues.

It contends that many judges having much experience of judicial work have become junior to Justice Isa due to his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Published in Dawn, April 5th, 2018