The government restricts the rights of the highest judge to act on suo motu and the bench constitution.
The intervention of the court is producing political instability, according to a resolution passed by the NA, which asks the judiciary not to meddle.
ISLAMABAD:
In a flash, the federal government on Tuesday not only made a decision prohibiting the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) from forming benches or starting suo motu proceedings on his or her own, but it also introduced a bill restricting the unchecked authority of the top judge in the National Assembly for approval.
With reference to the order of the day, NA Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf continued by stating that although the bill pertaining to the CJP’s powers needed to be enacted on Tuesday, the sense of the house advised that the bill be submitted to the law and justice committee for more discussion.
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, was approved by the federal cabinet on Tuesday, and the proposed measure was then swiftly introduced in the National Assembly in the presence of the prime minister, who had returned to the session after chairing the cabinet meeting.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to order elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa within 90 days of their dissolution, among other decisions, the federal government has decided to restrict the CJP’s ability to take suo motu notice as well as his ability to form benches on his own through the proposed bill.
The federal cabinet requested that three Supreme Court justices decide whether the court should commence suo motu proceedings in a given case at the meeting, amending the CJP’s suo motu powers to declare that the nation’s top judge cannot automatically initiate such proceedings.
According to the proposed law’s section 2 (constitution of benches), “every cause, appeal, or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and decided by a bench composed of the chief justice of Pakistan and two senior most judges, in order of seniority,” with the additional provision that “decisions of the committee shall be by majority.”
Every subject involving the exercise of original jurisdiction under paragraph (3) of Article 184 (original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court) of the Constitution is to be brought before the committee established under section 2 for review first, according to section 3 of the proposed law.
It also states that if the committee believes that a matter of public importance involving the enforcement of one or more of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is at issue, it shall appoint a bench consisting of at least three Supreme Court justices, which may also include committee members, to hear the case.
Later, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar stated in NA that while there can be five, seven, or more judges, there shouldn’t be fewer than three. The prime minister and foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari recently called for regulating the CJP’s suo motu powers, arguing that it should be a collective decision of the SC judges just as the prime minister takes a collective decision through the federal cabinet. This decision by the federal cabinet to restrict the CJP’s powers through legislation is in line with their recent speeches.
To a larger bench of the Supreme Court, and such appeal shall, for hearing, be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days, according to section 4 of the proposed legislation, which states that an appeal shall lie within 30 days from a final order of a bench of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution.
The law minister expressed regret that an appeal against the Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2022, wherein it ruled by a majority of 3-2 decisions that defecting lawmakers’ votes could not be counted, is still pending for hearing. The law minister stated in NA that through this section right for an intra-court appeal has been given within a stipulated time.
The decision, as may be noted, resulted in the change of the Punjab government, as the then-chief minister, Hamza Shehbaz, was chosen for the position with the support of 24 PTI dissident MPAs. Yet the Supreme Court’s ruling on the president’s request for an interpretation of Article 63-A had turned the tables on the PML-N and made it possible for Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi of the PTI to win the election for chief minister of Punjab.
A party should have the right to appoint counsel of its choice in order to file a review application under Article 188 of the Constitution (review of judgments or decrees by the Supreme Court), according to section 5 of the proposed law. The SC prohibits changing counsel, and the law minister later provided an explanation for the move.
An application arguing urgency or requesting interim relief, submitted in a cause, appeal, or case, should be scheduled for hearing within 14 days of the date of its filing, according to the proposed law’s section 6 (application for fixing of urgent matters).
According to the proposed law’s final section (act to supersede other laws, etc.), the act’s provisions will take effect regardless of any provisions of any other laws, rules, or regulations that are currently in effect or judgments rendered by any court, including the Supreme Court and a high court.
“Judicial meddling fueling political instability”
In the meantime, the lower house of the parliament heard a resolution from the federal minister for information and broadcasting, Marriyum Aurangzeb, in which it was stated that the House believed the judiciary’s unwarranted interference in political matters was the root of the political unrest in the nation.
The government’s spokesperson stated in reference to the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceeding regarding the elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa that the House not only supports the decision of four judges of the top court against three judges but also demands that it be put into effect. The spokesperson added that the House also expects the top court to refrain from meddling in political and administrative matters.
In addition, the information minister read that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is an independent constitutional body that is required by Article 218 of the Constitution to hold free and fair elections, urging the SC to refrain from interfering with the ECP’s constitutional authority and to permit the ECP to hold elections when the circumstances are appropriate.
Marriyum continued by stating that the House rules mandated free and transparent elections be held in accordance with Article 218 of the Constitution and in accordance with Article 224 (time of election and by-election), saying that elections for all the assemblies should be held concurrently under the caretaker setup so that the nation could advance towards true political stability.
Finally, Marriyum said that according to House rules, a full bench of the Supreme Court should consider all such constitutional cases when a demand for collective wisdom is made.
Afterwards, the motion was unanimously endorsed by the National Assembly, which demanded that general elections be held concurrently in all of the country’s legislatures to maintain political stability and urged the SC not to intervene in political matters.
