An eight-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial adjourned the hearing on pleas against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which curtailed the top judge’s powers to initiate suo motu proceedings and constitute benches on his own.
Besides the chief justice himself, the larger bench comprises Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Waheed heard pleas. Last hearing
The court also retained the stay on the implementation of the law till a final decision on the petitions.
At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan told the court a request had been submitted for setting up a full court to hear the case.
He also mentioned that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had filed a similar petition.
Justice Ahsan pointed out that the government’s request had not been scheduled for a hearing yet. He then inquired whether the AGP had provided the documents that the court had requested during the previous hearing.
CJP Bandial asked Attorney General has he submitted a parliamentary record of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure Bill) 2023? To which he replied in the negative saying it is expected that the record of the parliamentary proceedings will be available by tomorrow as Speaker’s office has been contacted both formally and informally.
PTI seeks to declare SC Law ‘unconstitutional’
Meanwhile, in a recent development, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf has submitted a reply to the Supreme Court in the case challenging the practice and procedure law.
The PTI had requested to declare the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Law 2023 null and void.
The law should be declared unconstitutional, the petition pleads, adding its clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Act should be declared unconstitutional.
The law
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, aimed at limiting the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) to take suo motu notice, has faced obstacles in its journey to becoming law.
While initially passed by both houses of parliament, the bill was sent back by the president for being beyond parliament’s competence. Later, it was adopted by a joint session of parliament, albeit with some amendments.
However, a recent ruling by an eight-member apex court bench has put the law’s implementation on hold, stating that it shall not take effect in any manner. The ruling came during a hearing of three petitions challenging the bill. It remains to be seen whether the bill will eventually become law or not.
Pleas
The three petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Advocate Muhammad Shafay Munir, Raja Amer Khan, Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain and others.
The petitioners argue that the bill is an act tainted with mala fide and urge the court to strike it down after declaring it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The federal government, law secretaries, as well as principal secretaries to the premier and president have been named as respondents in the case. The petitioners have requested the court to suspend the bill during the pendency of the petition, with a directive for President Alvi not to assent to the bill so that it could not become an act of parliament.
According to the petitions, the federal government cannot frame any law that seeks to interfere or regulate the functioning of the apex court or the powers exercised by it or its judges, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), under the Constitution. The petitions contend that the impugned bill is ultra vires and an unconstitutional measure, in sheer violation of the constitutional mandate.
The petitions emphasize that the independence of the judiciary and of each of the judges, including the CJP, is declared as an aim enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution and is a substantive part of the Constitution. It is argued that the SC, led by the CJP with its judges, must be independent of all executive or legislative transgressions to perform their constitutional obligations in providing justice to the people of Pakistan.
The petitions further argue that it is unimaginable that the office of CJP, with respect to constitutional powers, could be allowed to be regulated by the parliament. The independence of the judicial organ of the state, the judges, and the CJP must not be compromised, as provided in the Constitution.
Overall, the petitions seek to protect the independence and functioning of the judiciary in Pakistan, arguing that any attempt to regulate or interfere with its powers and functions is a violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of justice.
