ISLAMABAD: An eight-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC) will resume hearing a set of petitions challenging a bill seeking to curtail the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s powers on Tuesday, Dawn.com reported.

The SC bench will comprise CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyad Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed, according to the roster issued on Saturday.

The three petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Advocate Shafay Munir, Raja Amer Khan, Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain and others.

Article 184(3) of the Constitution sets out the SC’s original jurisdiction, and enables it to assume jurisdiction in matters involving a question of “public importance” with reference to the “enforcement of any of the fundamental rights” of Pakistan’s citizens.

Eight-member bench to hear petitions assailing ‘stayed law’ on May 2

The bill, titled the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. It was initially passed by both houses of parliament and sent to the president for his assent. But President Arif Alvi had sent it back, saying that the proposed law travelled “beyond the competence of parliament”. The bill was subsequently adopted by a joint session of parliament — albeit with some amendments.

However, while hearing the set of three petitions challenging the bill, the eight-member apex court bench on April 13 ruled that after the bill received either the president’s assent or it was deemed to have been given, the act that “comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect nor be acted upon in any manner” — halting the law’s implementation when the bill came into effect.

The PDM coalition government was swift to reject the apex court’s ruling. However, President Alvi again refused to give his assent to the bill on April 19 and returned it to parliament, following which it technically became an act of parliament on April 21.

Petitions

The three petitions argued that the concept, preparation, endorsement and passing of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 is an act tainted with mala fide. Therefore, they urge the SC to strike it down after declaring it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

The impugned bill is ultra vires and an unconstitutional measure, in sheer violation of the constitutional mandate, the petitions said, adding that the federal government has committed a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The federal government, law secretaries as well as principal secretaries to the premier and president have been named as respondents in the case.

The bill 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.

The legislation also includes the right to file an appeal within 30 days of the judgement in a suo motu case and that any case involving constitutional interpretation will not have a bench of fewer than five judges. The bill seeks to allow former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and other parliamentarians disqualified by the Supreme Court under suo motu powers (such as Jahangir Tareen) to appeal their disqualification within 30 days of the law’s enactment.

The petitioners further argued the parliament could not make a law that was inconsistent with the referred provisions of the Constitution. They contended that if any appeal could be allowed by a legislative enactment, the same could only be available through an amendment to the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2023