ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial has said that an independent judiciary was an integral part of the Constitution.
The CJP made the remarks as an eight-member SC larger bench took up a string of pleas challenging an approved bill, seeking to limit the chief justice’s powers, especially in matters related to suo motu powers.
The SC bench also comprised have Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed as its members.
The three pleas have been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Muhammad Shafay Munir, Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain, Raja Amer Khan, and others.
The approved bill, now an act of Parliament, has sought to curtail the exclusive powers of the chief justice to initiate suo motu proceedings and form benches instead of a panel comprising the chief justice and two most seniot judges of the Supreme Court . It also calls for the right to appeal against suo motu decisions within 14 days.
As the hearing started, Barrister Salahuddin appeared on behalf of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Farooq Naek appeared on behalf of the Pakistan People’s Party while Hassan Raza Pasha represented the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC).
At the start of the hearing, the chief justice said that the previous order issued by the top court was provisional. He said that democracy was an important component of the Constitution.
“A free judiciary and Centre are also significant features of the country’s Constitution,” he said, adding that the instant case was related to the independence of the judiciary.
Chief Justice Bandial said that the Supreme Court expected “serious arguments” from all parties, and the large bench will have to provide “excellent assistance”.
He also remarked that the approved law was the first of its kind in Pakistan that is related to the third pillar of the state (judiciary).
The court then sought detailed replies from all parties on May 8. The bench also sought the parliamentary record of the approved law, including the arguments in the standing committee concerned.
During the hearing, the PBC’s lawyer took the plea that the council had always fought for the rule of law and the freedom of the judiciary. “It would be fitting if a full court is constituted to hear the case,” he argued, adding that no one will object to a bench having seven senior-most judges.
He also said that several references had been filed in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC)against a member of the SC bench. He called for Justice Naqvi to be removed from the bench.
Justice Bandial observed that constituting a full court was the CJP’s privilege. He said that a reference could not bar a judge from working.
“A judge cannot be barred from working until the SJC gives its opinion,” the chief justice said, adding that the top court had made the same decision during the proceedings against SC judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
“Complaints against judges, including me, occasionally come,” the chief justice said, adding that political matters had “polluted” the Supreme Court’s environment.
“Political people want favourable results, not justice,” he said.
He observed that all institutions were bound to enforce the directives issued by the Supreme Court. The PBC’s plea for a full court was subsequently turned down.
The Supreme Court also rejected the attorney general’s request to vacate the anticipatory injunction on the law.
“First, explain to us what the law is and why it was made,” the chief justice said. The hearing was then adjourned for May 8 (Monday).
