ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Wednesday questioned the directions of the Supreme Court to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) after quashing the Presidential Reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for not allegedly disclosing foreign properties of his family in his wealth returns.

The SCBA filed a review petition in the Supreme Court under Article 188 of the Constitution against order passed by the 10-member full court dated June 19, 2020 to the extent of direction given to FBR after the full court squashed the Presidential Reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The court in a short order had quashed the reference of legal effect, holding the proceedings before Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as having abetted.

Filed through Hamid Khan, senior advocate of the Supreme Court, the SCBA expressed satisfaction over the order dated June 19, 2020 quashing the reference but expressed reservations about the contents of para 3 to 11 of the order and sought review by way of deletion of these paras.

“Under what provision of law and the constitution the matter relating to the assets and properties of the spouse and children of a judge of the supreme court has been referred to the FBR by the court under the impugned order of June 19, 2020 when they are neither a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) nor they were party before this court in the proceedings under Article 184(3) and whether the impugned order to that extent is without jurisdiction”, the SCBA questioned.

It further questioned when this court has quashed the Presidential Reference against the judge and proceedings thereunder have been held to have aborted before SJC, therefore, whether SJC has not become functus officio for the purpose of the case.

“Whether the directions/observations, contents of para 3 to 11 of the order constitutes mistake and error on the face of the record and thus liable to be reviewed and deleted,” it questioned. It contended that the directions, observations and contents of para 3 to 11 are unnecessary, superfluous, contradictory and unlawful and thus liable to be deleted. The SCBA prayed to the apex court that paras 3 to 11 may kindly be deleted.