The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has raised questions over the impartiality of former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa in the Monal restaurant case, observing that certain remarks made by the Supreme Court bench led by him were based on matters that did not form part of the judicial record. The observations came in a 44-page detailed judgment issued by a three-judge FCC bench headed by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, after the court overturned the Supreme Court's 2024 decision ordering the demolition of Monal restaurant at Pir Sohawa. An SC bench led by Isa had dismissed a review petition filed by the owner of Monal restaurant against the demolition order and made certain observations concerning the restaurant's 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 SC's 2024 ruling and permitting the Monal restaurant to remain. In its detailed judgment, the FCC expressed concern over the manner in which the SC proceedings had been conducted, particularly observations concerning the alleged personal relationships, private affairs and political associations of the parties. "As the then apex court of the country, the Supreme Court was expected to determine the controversy solely on the basis of the pleadings, the evidence available on the record, and the law on the subject," the judgment stated. "The judicial findings and observations must emanate from the record before the Court and not from matters resting in the personal knowledge or information of the bench hearing the case." The FCC observed that references to the 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 record. "The incorporation of such matters into judicial reasoning is liable to create a perception that the controversy has not been adjudicated with complete detachment from unnecessary considerations," it said. The court emphasised that public confidence in the administration of justice rested on the assurance that every litigant would be judged exclusively on the basis of law and evidence placed before the court. It observed that where a bench possessed personal knowledge of disputed facts or circumstances relating to a party, or where such knowledge could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of unfairness, judicial propriety required the judge to decline to hear the matter. "It is beyond cavil that judges of the superior judiciary possess the discretion to recuse themselves in appropriate cases so as to preserve both the appearance and the reality of impartial justice." The FCC noted that despite recording observations founded upon matters stated to be within their personal knowledge or information, the Supreme Court bench proceeded to adjudicate the controversy. "The observations of the learned bench, reproduced above, suggest that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted may have given rise to a reasonable apprehension concerning impartiality," it said. The court held that, in the circumstances, the proceedings might not be regarded as having fully satisfied the requirements of a fair trial. "The constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A necessarily includes the right to a proper hearing before a competent, independent, and unbiased forum," the judgment said. The FCC further observed that the SC bench ought not to have heard the case, keeping in view the high traditions of the institution and the established principle that justice should not only be done but should also manifestly be seen to be done. "The legitimacy of the judicial process depends not merely upon actual impartiality but equally upon maintaining public confidence that justice has been administered fairly, objectively, and without predisposition," the court said. "For these reasons, the aforesaid observations are legally unsustainable, as they are unsupported by the record and bear no discernible nexus to the determination of the legal issues involved in the case."