The federal government on Thursday supported a review of the Supreme Court’s decision ordering the demolition of Monal Restaurant, during proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court on a petition filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The court, however, rejected a request seeking the immediate reopening of the restaurant.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi heard the case and raised questions regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Rizvi remarked that, according to the judgment, animals appeared to have rights while humans did not. He also noted that a case concerning the renewal of Monal’s lease had been pending before a civil court, while intra-court appeals filed by some restaurants were also awaiting adjudication in the High Court.
Counsel for Monal Restaurant argued that the Supreme Court had directed the disposal of all pending cases through a single judgment. Justice Rizvi questioned why the issue of hearing all relevant parties had not been raised before the Supreme Court and asked why lawyers had remained silent at that stage. During the hearing, he observed that the role of counsel was to raise legal points and not merely stand before the court in a ceremonial manner.
The Additional Attorney General informed the court that a new Wildlife Board law had come into force in 2024 and stated that all parties agreed that the matter pending before the civil court should be allowed to proceed. He further submitted that there was consensus among lawyers that the Supreme Court verdict should be set aside. However, Justice Rizvi remarked that courts do not function on the basis of consensus among lawyers and that a judgment of such nature could not be nullified through agreement alone.
The bench observed that any withdrawal or modification of the court order would require a detailed judgment. Justice Rizvi said the court did not wish to impose a decision on parties without hearing them and questioned whether the petitioners wanted the court to decide the matter without hearing all stakeholders. Following the arguments, the Federal Constitutional Court adjourned further hearing of the case until the second week of July.
