The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case for three weeks, directing the Attorney General of Pakistan to submit the record of the parliamentary debate on the law to clip the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan by tomorrow.
The court also stayed the implementation of the law pending a final decision on the petitions.
An eight-judge larger bench resumed hearing petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which sought to end the chief justice’s powers to act on his own and constitute benches.
Headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, the bench also included Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
Today’s hearing
At the beginning of the hearing, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan told the court that a request has been submitted for setting up a full court to hear the case.
He also informed that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) had also filed a similar application.
Justice Ahsan pointed out that the government’s application has not yet been scheduled for hearing. He then inquired whether the AGP had provided the documents requested by the court during the previous hearing.
Chief Justice Bandyal asked the Attorney General whether he has submitted the parliamentary record of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure Bill) 2023. To which he replied in the negative that the record of the parliamentary proceedings is expected to be available by tomorrow as the Speaker’s office has been approached formally and informally.
The Attorney General said that the independence of the judiciary is an important aspect of the constitution, the constitution of the benches and matters of appeals are fixed in the law.
He argued that the matters mentioned in the law are administrative in nature. He said that the rules of the Supreme Court (SC) are framed by a full court and therefore any decision or case related to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law should involve the full court. He also noted that the law would apply to judges who were not involved in the case.
However, Justice Ahsan disagreed and said that the matter is related to the power of legislation and not to change the rules of the Supreme Court. He explained that various benches routinely hear cases related to legislative powers.
Justice Naqvi then asked if any such law had been made in the past, to which the AGP replied that until 1973, the President’s permission was necessary to make laws. Current. The AGP argued that no such case had been registered in the past and therefore a full court should be constituted.
Justice Malik, however, questioned whether the government wanted to take “advantage” of the full court and whether the government wanted the internal discussions of the Supreme Court to come out in the open. He also asked if the AGP was trying to say that the nation had demanded a full court.
The AGP admitted that the Full Court did not hear every case related to the independence of the judiciary but highlighted that several cases, including the Iftikhar Chaudhry case, were heard by the Full Court. Justice Naqvi gave arguments and said that the Iftikhar Chaudhry case is of a different nature.
Justice Akhtar then said that the Full Court has the power to make rules for administrative matters. He questioned whether the case related to the rules of the Supreme Court which came before the three-member bench should also be heard by the full court.
Justice Malik added that the AGP’s reasoning was “beyond understanding” as it indicated that the full court’s decision was good and the three-judge bench’s decision was bad.
During the hearing, the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) said that the Supreme Court has stopped the government from implementing the law. Justice Akhtar said that Parliament was satisfied with a five-member bench, so why not the Attorney General?
The AGP referred to a past case involving former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, where judges were challenged and a nine-member full court heard the case. However, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) observed that if there was any objection, the judge had to decide whether to hear the case or not.
The AGP argued that the issue is not only about the interpretation of the Constitution but also about the establishment of military courts in the country, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Chief Justice clarified that the case is not related to constitutional amendment.
Muslim League (N)’s lawyer argued that the court stopped the implementation of the law for the first time, petitions for the constitution of the full court were filed as usual. Justice Ahsan remarked that the case related to Justice Isa was referred to the Chief Justice, who himself did not hear the case.
The court then directed the AGP to produce the record of the parliamentary proceedings by the next day and adjourned the hearing for three weeks.
The Court also recognized the need for further assistance in ascertaining the circumstances under which the Bench may call for the formation of a Full Court.
Centre asks again to form full court bench
Meanwhile, the federal government once again moved the Supreme Court to constitute a full-court bench to hear all petitions against the bill as the Supreme Court rejected the Centre’s plea in the previous hearing.
In the petition, the government argued that the court’s decision to suspend the law showed that it viewed the proposed legislation as a significant threat to the independence of the judiciary.
Although the government has full confidence in every judge of the Supreme Court, it does not want to hear the plea of any particular judge. Due to the critical nature of the matter, the government is requesting that petitions against the Act be heard by all judges of the Supreme Court.
‘Political matters polluted top court’s environment’
In a previous hearing, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Justice Umar Atta Bandyal, emphasized the interim nature of the previous court order on the independence of the judiciary.
He remarked that democracy and an independent judiciary and the Center are important components of the Constitution and the present case deals with the independence of the judiciary which is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.
The top judge expected serious arguments from the parties in the case and said that the larger bench would have to provide best assistance because of the law in question, which is the first of its kind in Pakistan and related to the third pillar of the state.
The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) counsel argued that the council has always fought for the rule of law and the judiciary. He suggested that it would be appropriate to set up a full court to hear the case, with no objection to a bench of seven senior-most judges.
Justice Bandyal said that a judge cannot be suspended until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) gives its opinion, citing the same judgment during the proceedings against Justice Qazi Faiz Isa.
The chief justice also acknowledged that complaints against judges are common, including against him, and pointed out that political matters have “polluted” the environment of the Supreme Court.
The lawyer also pointed out that several references were filed against a member of the existing Supreme Court (SC) bench and sought the removal of Justice Naqvi from the bench, although the plea was rejected.
In response, the court sought detailed responses from all parties in the case on May 8. The court also sought the parliamentary record of the law and the arguments presented in the relevant standing committee.
Bill
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which aims to limit the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) to take ex officio notices, has faced hurdles on its way to becoming a law.
While initially approved by both houses of Parliament, the President sent back the bill as it was beyond the competence of Parliament. Later, it was approved by a joint session of Parliament, albeit with some amendments.
However, a recent judgment by an eight-judge bench of the Supreme Court has stayed the implementation of the law, saying it will not come into force in any way. The decision came during the hearing of three petitions challenging the bill. It remains to be seen whether the bill will eventually become law.
Petitions These three petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Advocate Muhammad Shafi Munir, Raja Amir Khan, Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain and others.
The petitioners argue that the bill is a maliciously tainted act and urge the court to strike it down after declaring it without statutory authority and of no legal effect.
Apart from the federal government, the law secretary, the principal secretaries of the prime minister and the president have been named as defendants in the case. The petitioners have requested the court to suspend the bill during the pendency of the petition, directing President Alvi not to assent to the bill so that it does not become an Act of Parliament.
According to the petitions, the federal government cannot make any law which seeks to interfere with or regulate the functioning of the Supreme Court under the Constitution or the powers exercised by it or its judges, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). The petitions argued that the measure was unconstitutional and unconstitutional, in gross violation of the constitutional mandate.
The petitions emphasized that the independence of the judiciary and every judge including the Chief Justice is enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and is an integral part of the Constitution. It is argued that the Supreme Court, headed by the CJP along with its judges, should be free from all administrative or legislative encumbrances to discharge its constitutional responsibilities to deliver justice to the people of Pakistan. Should.
The petitions further stated that it is unthinkable to allow the post of Chief Justice to be regulated by Parliament in terms of constitutional powers. The independence of the judiciary, judges and the Chief Justice of the State, as enshrined in the Constitution, should not be compromised.
Overall, the petitions sought to protect the independence and functioning of the judiciary in Pakistan, arguing that any attempt to regulate or interfere with its powers and functions would violate the Constitution and the principles of justice. It is a violation of basic principles.
