ISLAMABAD: Two judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday raised questions over the powers enjoyed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). The two judges said that the apex court “cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice.”
Two Supreme Court judges, including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, issued a detailed dissenting note on Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) elections suo motu notice taken by the Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial.
The Supreme Court judges called for revisiting the “one-man show” powers enjoyed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial.
The judges, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail expressed concern that the apex court’s dependence on the decisions of one person could lead to the abuse of power and an autocratic rule.
The ruling comes in the context of a case brought by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party over the delay of elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The judges argued that a collegial system with checks and balances was necessary to ensure good governance, prevent mistakes, and promote transparency and accountability. The ruling has brought attention to the issue of concentrated power and public trust in the Pakistani justice system.
The development comes minutes after the apex court served notice to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), and adjourned the hearing on PTI’s petition challenging the ECP’s orders to put off Punjab Assembly elections till October 8.
Dissenting note of SC judges
“The apex court cannot depend on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice, but should be regulated through a rule-based system approved by all the Supreme Court Judges under Article 191 of the Constitution, in regulating the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) including the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction; the formation of Benches to hear such cases; the formation of Regular Benches to hear all the other cases instituted in the Supreme Court; and the constitution of Special Benches,” it read.
Highlighting the limitations of running a “one-man show,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail mentioned that it leads to the concentration of power in the hands of one individual, making the system more susceptible to the abuse of power.
“In contrast, a collegial system with checks and balances helps prevent the abuse and mistakes in the exercise of power and promote transparency and accountability,” they mentioned, adding that it also ensures good governance as it rests on collaboration, shared decision-making, and balance of power.
“When one person has too much power, there is a risk that the institution may become autocratic and insulated, resulting in one-man policies being pursued, which may have a tendency of going against the rights and interests of the people,” the document read.
The two judges, mentioning that the justice system stands on public trust and confidence reposed in it, emphasized that the “one-man show needs a revisit as it limits diverse perspectives, concentrates power, and increases the risk of an autocratic rule.”
They mentioned that the chief justice of this court was conferred with wide discretion in the matter of constituting benches and assigning cases to them under the present Supreme Court Rules 1980.
“Ironically, this court has time and again held how public functionaries ought to structure their discretion but has miserably failed to set the same standard for itself, leaving the chief justice with unfettered powers in the matter of regulating the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) (including suo motu) and in matters of constituting benches and assigning cases.
“It is this unbridled power enjoyed by the chief justice in taking up any matter as a suo motu case and in constituting special benches after the institution of the cases and assigning cases to them that has brought severe criticism and lowered the honour and prestige of this court.”
They said that the court had been ushered into a “political thicket” by the “suo motu” proceedings and the connected constitution petitions, which commenced last year with the dissolution of the National Assembly of Pakistan and reached the dissolution of the provincial assemblies of two provinces this year after passing through the disputes over the matters of counting of votes of defected members of political parties and election to the office of the chief minister of a province, and that too, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
