ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court rejected appeals against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 in a ruling delivered by Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa, with a 10-5 majority. The proceedings were broadcast live on state television.
Five members of the bench, namely Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Ayesha A Malik, and Justice Shahid Waheed, opposed the law.
The full bench, led by Chief Justice Isa, reserved the verdict after conducting five hearings since September 18.
The Attorney General for Pakistan, Mansoor Usman Awan, argued that no amendment had been made to Article 191 of the constitution, ensuring judicial freedom since its inception. He explained that the authority to legislate on high treason and the right to information act was derived from different constitutional clauses, emphasizing the right to privacy was regulated by law. He asserted that parliament had the authority to legislate based on Article 191, and no article of the constitution could withdraw this legislative right.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Isa restricted Justices Ijazul Ahsan and Muneeb Akhtar from questioning lawyers. Justice Ahsan expressed concern that the law interfered with the independence of the Supreme Court.
Faisal Siddiqui, representing MQM, argued that the Act could be amended by a simple majority and discussed the definition of "law" in Article 191. Justice Ayesha Malik inquired about the term "law" in Article 191, and Siddiqui clarified that the Supreme Court rules defined it. Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar were restrained from asking questions during the proceedings.
The Chief Justice defended his decision to allow the counsel to finish arguments, and Justice Akhtar protested being barred from asking questions. The debate revolved around the parliament's authority to legislate, the interference in the Supreme Court's functioning, and the meaning of "law" in Article 191.
On the previous day, Chief Justice Isa acknowledged that parliament had passed the law with good intentions. The Supreme Court Bar Association President, Abid Zuberi, argued that parliament did not have the authority to make rules regarding the practice and procedure act, contending that only the Supreme Court could create such rules. The proceedings were marked by the submission of fresh documents and debates on the interpretation of the constitution.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar emphasized that the Supreme Court had the constitutional authority to make rules about itself. The Chief Justice expressed concern about the backlog of cases due to the extended hearings and urged the SCBA president to conclude arguments.
Justice Athar Minallah inquired about the expansion of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, while Justice Minallah noted that the act did not grant the right of appeal against review. The CJP questioned the urgency of the matter and told Zuberi to complete his arguments.
Throughout the proceedings, various judges expressed their concerns about the Act's impact on the separation of powers and the authority of the Supreme Court.
In a previous hearing, Chief Justice Isa had questioned how the Act could limit the Supreme Court's powers and expressed his concerns about concentrating authority in an individual's hands.
