The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) too on Saturday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment on Justice Qazi Faez Isa presidential reference case, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

Seeking a review of the June 19 verdict, the petition has been filed through well-known constitutional expert Salman Akram Raja Advocate.

The PBC has made the Federation, President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan, Law Minister Farogh Naseem, Supreme Judicial Council, Adviser to the PM on Accountability Shahzad Akbar and the complainant, Waheed Dogar, respondents in the matter.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had moved a similar petition, seeking the expunging of seven paragraphs, ranging from 3 to 11, of the decision announced last month which are related to Sarina Isa, wife of Justice Faez.

The apex court last month had quashed the reference against Justice Faez, which accused the judge of being in possession of multiple undeclared properties in the name of his wife and children in the United Kingdom, terming it invalid.

Seven of the 10 judges on the bench had also ordered the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to seek explanations from the judge’s wife, Sarina Isa, and children on the nature and source of funding for three properties in their names in the United Kingdom and submit a report to the Supreme Court registrar.

But the two top representative bodies of lawyers are not alone in challenging the verdict as Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) also approached the Supreme Court for a review of its June 19 judgment.

The SHCBA petition argued that the directives, observations or contents of paragraphs three to 11 were unnecessary, superfluous, contradictory, excessive and unlawful, thus liable to be reviewed and deleted since it constituted mistake and error apparent on the face of the record.

It added that the government had recently terminated the services of the FBR chairperson and appointed a new chief only to manipulate and adversely influence the investigation being carried out by the FBR on the directives of the Supreme Court through its June 19 verdict.

“Moreover, timelines/deadlines have been given to the income tax authorities through paragraphs three to 11 with regard to the proceedings against the wife and children of the judge which are clearly illegal because the Income Tax Ordinance (ITO) 2001 and other related laws in this behalf have no provision for such timelines or deadlines for holding the proceedings purportedly to be held under Section 116 or other related provisions of the ITO. Hence the timelines/deadlines mentioned therein are without any basis or sanctity in law and ought to be set aside,” the petition pleaded.