All 15 judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) will soon hear a set of petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023. This law requires a committee of three senior judges of the court to form benches to hear constitutional matters of public importance.
The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, who was sworn in yesterday.
Prior to the hearing, Justice Isa called a full court meeting, which is currently under way. According to the meeting’s agenda, the judges will discuss the cases pending before the top court, prioritising cases, live telecast of hearings and guidelines for hearing cases in an effective manner.
The previous government of PDM had enacted the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, aimed at limiting the powers of the top judge. The legislation deprives the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity.
The law states that a three-member bench, comprising the CJP and the two senior-most judges of the apex court, will decide whether or not to take up a matter suo motu. Previously, this was solely the prerogative of the CJP. Additionally, it adds to the review jurisdiction of Supreme Court, giving the right to file an appeal within 30 days of the judgement in suo motu cases.
On April 13, an eight-judge SC bench headed by former CJP Umar Ata Bandial, had suspended the enforcement of the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023.
When the law was suspended, Justice Bandial had observed that the court had great respect for the Parliament but it also had to examine if any constitutional deviation, violation or transgression had taken place while enacting the legislation.
The petitioners in the case had pleaded before the apex court that the concept, preparation, endorsement and passing of the law was an act tainted with mala fide. Therefore, the bill should be struck down after declaring it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the petition contended.
Moreover, they said the federal government could not frame any law that seeks to interfere or regulate with the functioning of the apex court or the powers exercised by it or its judges including CJP, under the Constitution.
