The judges and AGP are debating the advantages of a “full court” hearing.
Supreme Court directs the chief legal officer to hand over parliamentary record
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has again directed Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan to submit the record of parliament and a standing committee with regard to the Supreme Court (Practise and Procedure) Act, 2023. This comes after the court questioned AGP Awan about his request to form a full court.
On Monday, the Supreme Court’s larger bench of eight judges commenced considering petitions challenging the bill that would’regulate’ the CJP’s authority to convene benches and initiate suo motu proceedings.
The federal government has applied to have a full court formed to hear the petitions, as explained by AGP Awan to the bench led by CJP Umar Ata Bandial. The PML-N’s lawyer further claimed that the party had filed a motion to establish a full court.
It’s no secret that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of the Supreme Court of the United States v.. On April 13, the SC heard various petitions challenging the bill and temporarily halted its enforcement in what has been called a preventative measure.
Nonetheless, the measure became law on April 22 notwithstanding the SC’s judgement, after the National Assembly Secretariat formally requested publication in the official gazette from the Printing Corporation of Pakistan (PCP).
The AGP argued that creation of benches and the right to appeal in suo motu instances are addressed by the statute on Monday. He explained that the law is concerned with administrative issues.
Only a majority of the Supreme Court can vote to change the Court’s rules.
Since the statute will also apply to the SC justices who are not part of this bench, he said that a matter involving the independence of judiciary and the SC guidelines should be heard by a full court.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan commented that the issue is not whether or not the Supreme Court regulations can be changed, but rather whether or not parliament has the authority to legislate on the matter. “Different SC benches have been regularly hearing cases related to [a legislature’s] power to make laws,” he explained.
Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, a Justice, wanted to know if such a law had ever been passed by parliament. Despite Article 91 of the Constitution, he questioned how such legislation could be passed.
The AGP acknowledged the unusual character of the case, saying, “that is why it is necessary to form a full-court to hear this matter.”
Justice Ayesha Malik made the observation that the Supreme Court’s various benches are able to hear “first of a kind” cases. Would the administration use a full bench to its advantage? Why would the government wish to draw attention to judicial factions, anyway?
Every single instance, she emphasised, is crucial. “Then how can it be decided which cases require a full court and which can be heard by regular benches?” Has the entire court previously heard all cases involving the separation of powers in the judiciary?
The AGP reached consensus that no case involving judicial independence had been handled by a full court.
The Chief Justice observed that a full court was unnecessary in this instance.
If the administration meant to imply that the public only trusted a full court, Justice Ayesha Malik inquired if that was the case. How can the court make its decisions based on the preferences of the petitioners?
Whether or whether the bench should direct the CJP to convene a full court was a question raised by Justice Shahid Waheed.
A full court, according to Justice Munib Akhtar, can set precedent in administrative cases. What if there’s a three-judge bench and a petition asking them to interpret the rules? Should a full court also hear this case? The regulations have been decided by the entire court.
According to the AGP, the petitioners are questioning the authority of parliament to pass laws on the subject.
Ayesha Malik, a judge, has ruled that the AGP’s reasoning is flawed. A judgement from a full court is preferable to one from a three-judge panel.
According to Justice Munib Akhtar, the Supreme Court Practises and Procedure Act, 2023 provides an answer to the question of how to establish a full court. According to the statute, constitutional interpretation cases must be heard by a five-judge panel of the highest court.
According to the AGP, the law is currently on hold due to a court order. If the court had not stopped the statute, Justice Akhtar questioned whether or not the government would still seek the formation of a full court.
The AGP advocates for a full court, while the Parliament favours a bench of five. The government’s apparent lack of mathematical prowess. How many judges are involved in this case?
The AGP has stated that a full court can be formed at the request of a party. There must be at least five judges sitting on the bench to follow the letter of the law.
Justice Akhtar questioned the AGP if a five-judge bench could hear cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution, and the AGP said that it could.
According to Justice Ayesha Malik, challenges to laws are often heard by the courts. She said that even the highest courts considered such cases.
Has the government ever requested that a full court of any high court be convened to hear such petitions? How many judges from the Lahore and Sindh high courts will be hearing these cases?
After Justice Malik asked if the LHC and SHC will each establish benches of 60 and 40 judges to hear petitions against laws, Justice Munib Akhtar asked the same issue.
The AGP refused to respond, saying that the Supreme Court Practises and Procedure Act, 2023 has not been challenged in a higher court. If the Supreme Court convenes a full bench to hear the issue, Justice Ijazul Ahsan argued, the high courts would have to do the same.
Appeals against presidential references filed against former CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry and SC senior judge Qazi Faez Isa were heard by full courts, according to the CJP.
Due to the gravity of the situation, full courts were convened. The whole courts ruled against the president in both instances. Did the Supreme Court hold a full session to consider any more cases?
The CJP heard arguments from the AGP and the PML-N’s legal team, and then directed the AGP to produce the parliamentary record and the relevant standing committee’s report on the law. In light of the impending absence of a bench member in the coming weeks, he postponed the case indefinitely.
