The law that will restrict the powers of the CJ has been returned by the President to Parliament.
Alvi claims that it is possible to challenge it as a “colorable law.”
ISLAMABAD: On Saturday, President Dr. Arif Alvi sent back to Parliament for reconsideration the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which attempts to limit the chief justice of Pakistan’s authority to take suo motu notice and appoint benches on his own.
the request from the federal cabinet
that the law be signed by the president without delay in an effort to end the constitutional and political crises facing the nation.
The law was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to call elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa within 90 days of their dissolution, among other such rulings. It has already been accepted by the National Assembly and Senate.
The measure was returned by President Alvi “as per the requirements of Article 75 of the Constitution,” the president’s staff said in a statement, adding that “the bill prima facie travels beyond the authority of parliament and can be contested as a colourable law.”
The return of Supreme Court bill, which was officially approved by Parliament, was, according to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, extremely sad.
He wrote, “President Alvi returning the Supreme Court Bill lawfully passed by Parliament is terribly regrettable,” in a message on the social networking site Twitter. He has denigrated the prestigious Office by his actions by behaving like a PTI employee who is more obedient to Imran Niazi than the Constitution and the requirements of his Office.
“The president remarked that he believed it suitable and proper to return the measure with a request for reconsideration in line with the Constitution in order to satisfy the scrutiny of its legality (if challenged in a court of law),” according to the report.
After giving the measure “in-depth study,” the president identified a number of factors that needed to be taken into account in order to “provide for the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”
According to him, “under such enabling provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Rules 1980 have been made and are in force, duly validated and adopted by the Constitution itself,” and “under such enabling provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Rules 1980 have been made and are in force.”
“These time-tested Rules have been observed since the year 1980,” he said, “and any alteration to them may amount to interference with the internal operations of the Court, its autonomy, and its independence.”
The Constitution was “based on the notion of trichotomy of power – three pillars of the State whose realm of power, authority, and functions are defined and designated by the Constitution itself,” according to the president’s second justification.
In accordance with Article 67 of the Constitution, which provides that “a House may create rules for governing its procedure and the conduct of its work,” Parliament also has the authority to make rules. According to Article 191, “the Supreme Court may create rules controlling the practice and procedure of the Court, subject to the Constitution and legislation.”
He emphasized how Articles 67 and 191 were similar to one another and recognized each other’s independence and autonomy, respectively, limiting intrusion into either one’s territory.
Alvi said that the Supreme Court was “an autonomous institution as imagined by the founding fathers that in the State of Pakistan “independence of judiciary should be totally safeguarded””.
He said, “Article 191 was included and the Supreme Court was kept out of the law-making authority of the Parliament with such a purpose in mind.”
The president asserts that the Constitution itself gives the legislature the authority to enact laws. According to Article 70, “Bills may be introduced and passed with respect to any issue included in the Federal Legislative List, which is included in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.”
The clause in Article 142(a) that states that Parliament may pass legislation “with respect to any topic in the Federal Legislative List” is followed and further reinforced. The Supreme Court was specifically left out of Article 55 of Part I of the Fourth Schedule, which gave the Parliament the authority to pass legislation governing “the jurisdiction and functions of all courts save the Supreme Court.”
The law, he emphasized, “prima-facie travels outside the jurisdiction of the Parliament and might be contested as a colourable legislation.”
Although stating that “the intention may be desirable,” the president questioned if “such an objective” could be accomplished “without changing the provisions of relevant Articles of the Constitution.”
A Constitution is not an ordinary law; rather, it is an expression of basic ideas, a higher law, and a law above other laws, and as such, its provisions “cannot be altered by an ordinary law since the Constitution is a higher law – the father of laws.”
