ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday suspended the implementation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, which was aimed at curtailing the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) power from taking suo motu notice, until further orders.
The eight-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Uma Ata Bandial, issued an eight-page detailed order in the case against the bill, wherein Advocate Khawaja Tariq Rahim and others had filed four petitions.
The apex court had issued notices to all the political parties, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, the federal government, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), the Supreme Court Bar Association, and other respondents in the case.
The larger bench headed by CJP Umar Ata Bandial is hearing the plea. The bench includes Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Mazahir Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Shahid Waheed.
During the hearing, the counsel for petitioner Raja Amir argued that the proposed legislation interfered with the independence of the judiciary. The counsel submitted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan could invalidate a bill passed by Parliament.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan is nothing without the Chief Justice, and limiting the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan will affect the independence of the judiciary. The powers of the Chief Justice (CJP) and judges of the apex court could not be curtailed.
The Supreme Court (SC) is the guardian of the Constitution and is empowered to administer justice. The Chief Justice said and added that institutions, including the Parliament, are bound to obey and implement the orders of the apex court. There are rules of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 191, which Parliament cannot amend, he submitted.
Chief Justice Bandial asked him whether the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental right that is completely protected by the Constitution, like the executive and the Parliament.
Advocate Siddiqui argued that the president is a symbol of the unity of Pakistan, and the office of the president is not only ceremonial. As head of the state, the president is the force that holds all the federating units together. He can direct to re-examine the bill.
After the passage of the bill from the Parliament, the legislative process is considered complete. He said the order of the apex court in the present case would not interfere with the pending legislation. The Parliament of Pakistan has completed its work and sent the bill to the president for his assent, so it cannot be considered an intervention of the court. The court later adjourned the hearing until May 2.
Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023
The decision by the Supreme Court to suspend the implementation of the bill has been seen as a significant victory for the judiciary’s independence in Pakistan. Legal experts and political analysts have closely watched the case as it has the potential to set a precedent for future attempts to limit the judiciary’s powers. The court’s decision will be seen as a crucial check on the power of the Parliament and the executive in Pakistan.
On April 13, the Supreme Court heard pleas against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023. The bill, which aims to limit the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in taking suo motu notice under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, had been passed by both houses of Parliament for the second time after amendments proposed by PML-N MNA Shiza Fatima. However, President Arif Alvi returned the bill unsigned for reconsideration, stating that the legislation “prima-facie travels beyond the parliament’s competence and can be assailed as a colourable legislation.”
The proposed bill suggests giving a three-member committee, consisting of senior judges from the Supreme Court (including the Chief Justice), the power to take notice of cases on their own. According to the bill, if a matter falls under the original jurisdiction of Article 184(3) of the Constitution, it must be first examined by the committee. If the committee determines that the case involves a question of public importance related to enforcing fundamental rights, then a bench of at least three judges from the Supreme Court, which may include members of the committee, must hear and decide on the matter.
The President, Arif Alvi, referred to Article 191 of the Constitution, which authorizes the Supreme Court to establish rules governing its own procedures. He explained that the Supreme Court Rules 1980 had been created and are in effect through this constitutional provision. He emphasized that the Constitution is based on the separation of powers and that Articles 67 and 191 of the Constitution recognize the independence of the Parliament and the Supreme Court, respectively, and prohibit interference between the two domains.
In his view, the proposed bill exceeds the Parliament’s jurisdiction and may be challenged as a dishonest law. He also argued that the Constitution could not be modified by an ordinary law since it is a higher law that embodies fundamental principles and is above other laws.
