ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court resumed hearing on petitions challenging the law curtailing the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP).
An eight-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Ijaz. Al-Ahsan is included. Justice Shahid Waheed is hearing the case.
At the start of the hearing, Chief Justice Bandial remarked that the bench would hear everyone after Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan’s statement that some parties to the case would like to address the bench through video link.
The top judge observed in the petition that the case raised important points, including the independence of the judiciary, and termed it “one of a kind”.
“Our final hearing stay order is in place. The law is very clear on the Supreme Court rules,” said Chief Justice Bandial.
He also directed all the parties in the case to file written arguments in the case and called for the minutes of the day when Parliament passed legislation on the matter.
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, which aims to regulate the powers of the Chief Justice, was passed on April 10 during a joint session of Parliament.
The National Assembly notified the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 as an Act on April 21.
The same bench hearing the case today stayed the implementation of the bill.
The Supreme Court, during the previous hearing of the case on April 13, had stayed the implementation of the law saying that if the law gets the President’s assent, the bill will not be implemented in any way till further orders.
“From the moment a Bill receives the assent of the President or (as the case may be) is deemed to have been given such assent, from that moment and until further orders, the Act shall have no Read the nine-page interim order issued on April 13.
In its order, the bench held that the facts and circumstances presented herein are unusual both in import and effect.
