ISLAMABAD: During the hearing of the petitions challenging the bill revoking the powers of the Chief Justice, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that the court has utmost respect for the Parliament and notices to President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and others.
An eight-member bench of the Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, amid a boycott of the court proceedings by the country’s top bar association and criticism from coalition parties.
The bench is headed by Chief Justice Bandial and includes Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Syed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
None of the judges who questioned the Chief Justice’s powers are on the bench.
In a joint statement issued by the coalition parties ahead of the hearing, the ruling partners criticized the move to form the bench before the completion of the legislative process, calling it an attack on Parliament.
Earlier, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Vice Chairman Haroon Al Rasheed and Executive Committee Vice Chairman Hasan Raza Pasha said that the Chief Justice has hastily constituted a bench to hear the petitions.
He said that the lawyers’ community will boycott the court proceedings across the country on Thursday.
Earlier this week, the bill – curtailing the CJP’s powers – was passed by a joint session of Parliament following the return of President Dr Arif Alvi.
Three separate petitions were then filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Raja Aamir Khan, Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Shafi Munir, among others, asking the Supreme Court to set aside the bill.
The federal government approved the bill in a joint session of parliament on Monday after President Arif Alvi returned it without signing it last week.
The President referred the bill back to Parliament for reconsideration citing Article 75 of the Constitution, stating that its substantive status was beyond the competence of Parliament and could be used as colorable legislation. Is.
During a tumultuous joint session, the House approved an amendment to the Supreme Court bill, which would have convened a committee of judges to frame rules and regulations regarding automatic notices. This amendment was proposed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) Member of Assembly Shaza Fatima Khawaja.
According to the amendment, the Chief Justice of Pakistan or any other member of the committee can convene the meeting until the finalization of the rules and regulations.
Today’s hearing
At the beginning of the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer Imtiaz Siddiqui started his arguments saying that this case is very important in the current situation.
The lawyer said that after the Qasim Suri case, the differences between the parties increased and the political crisis increased after the restoration of the National Assembly.
“The federal government and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) are unwilling to conduct the elections, which has forced the court to take suo motu notice,” Siddiqui said, highlighting the circumstances in which the Supreme Court had intervened in the matter.
The lawyer said that problems arose after court directives to implement the constitution, after which judges and the judiciary were criticized.
“Government ministers and MPs are responsible for this,” the lawyer said, adding that the proposed legislation interfered with the independence of the judiciary.
He said that the President’s objections to the bill were not examined. Siddiqui said that the bill will become a law after approval by the joint session of Parliament in 10 days.
He said that the Supreme Court makes its own rules under Article 191.
Explaining the important points of the bill, the lawyer said that the three-member committee will decide on the formation of benches and taking notices under the bill itself.
He said that it is illegal for the cabinet to ratify a bill. Presenting and approving bills in the cabinet are administrative matters.
He further said that this bill is not pending but a proposed act, adding that whether the President approves it or not, it will become a law in 10 days.
Lawyer Siddiqui said that the Supreme Court can annul the bill passed by the Parliament.
The lawyer remarked that the Supreme Court does not exist without the Chief Justice and limiting his powers will affect the independence of the judiciary and other judges.
He further said that the powers of the Chief Justice and judges cannot be reduced. Siddiqui added that the Supreme Court can review the steps taken by the state institutions.
He insisted that “the court can review the bill after its passage and even before the assent by the President.”
Siddiqui said that the Parliament is bound to obey the orders of the Supreme Court.
He said that under Article 191, Parliament cannot amend the rules of the Supreme Court.
In response to the lawyer, Chief Justice Bandial said that according to him, the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental right which is fully protected under the Constitution.
He added that similarly, “you [Sadiqi] believe that the judiciary has the same constitutional protection as the parliament and the executive.”
Siddiqui replied that the President is a symbol of the unity of Pakistan and his position as the head is not merely a formality.
“The President once again directed to review the bill, however, the bill cannot be amended after the approval of the assembly,” he said, adding that the legislative process is considered once passed.
Advocate Siddiqui pleaded with the court to stay the bill from becoming a law and restrain the law ministry from notifying the proposed act as law until the verdict is announced.
Siddiqui said that there is a right of appeal under the proposed bill.
“If a 10-judge bench hears a case, how can an appeal be filed? Can junior judges hear appeals against the verdict announced by senior judges?” he questioned.
To which Chief Justice Bandial replied that all judges are equal in the court.
Advocate Siddiqui said that in this case the steps before the approval of the bill should also be taken into consideration.
“What do you want from the court about this current case?” Justice Akhtar questioned.
On this, the lawyer said that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 should be declared unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Bandial remarked that it was an important case as the issue of independence of judiciary was raised.
He said that we have utmost respect for the Parliament, but the court wants to review the legislation.
The Chief Justice said that the court would try to schedule the next hearing as soon as possible when fellow judges are available.
Later, the Supreme Court issued notices to the parties, including the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association, in the petitions filed against the bill curtailing the powers of the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Attorney General for legal assistance and adjourned the hearing till next week.
The Bill
The purpose of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 is to empower a three-member committee comprising senior judges, including the Chief Justice, to automatically take notice. It also aims at transparent proceedings in the Supreme Court and includes right of appeal.
Regarding the constitution of benches, the bill states that every cause, matter or appeal before the Supreme Court will be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by a committee consisting of the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges. It further said that the decisions of the committee will be taken by majority.
Regarding the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the bill said that any matter invoking Article 184(3) would first be placed before the committee.
The Bill states that if the Committee is of the opinion that a question of public importance is involved in respect of the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution, it shall constitute a Bench consisting of at least Three judges of the Supreme Court, who may also include members of the committee, decide the case.
On matters where interpretation of the Constitution is required, the bill said the committee would constitute a bench of at least five Supreme Court judges for the task.
In respect of an appeal against any decision of the Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3), the Bill provides that an appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the order of the Bench to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Must know. It further states that the appeal shall be fixed for hearing within a period of not less than 14 days.
It further stated that this right of appeal would also extend retroactively to those aggrieved persons against whom an appeal was filed on this condition under Article 184(3) before the commencement of the SC (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023. was Within 30 days of the commencement of the Act.
The bill also said that a party would have the right to appoint counsel of his choice to file a revision petition under Article 188 of the Constitution.
Further, it provides that an application seeking urgent or interim relief filed in any cause, appeal or matter shall be fixed for hearing within 14 days from the date of filing.
The Bill states that the provisions thereof shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rule or regulation which may for the time being be in force or in any decision of any court including the Supreme Court and High Courts. .
