The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday held that the enactment of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 did not infringe any fundamental rights, but rather facilitated their enforcement.

Authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, a 22-page detailed judgement in the landmark case said that the Constitution empowered parliament to legislate and set the parameters for the apex court’s workings, as stipulated in Article 191 of the Constitution.

The detailed verdict explained why the top court on October 11 upheld the law passed by the previous government. At the time, the bench had given its assent to the law, but with the caveat that the provision for appeals against decisions taken under Article 184(3) of the Constitution would not apply retrospectively.

The case was one of the first orders of business taken up by CJP Isa upon entering office and its proceedings before a full court bench were also the first to be live-streamed.

“There appears to be nothing unconstitutional, illegal or objectionable in the Act on a plain reading of these provisions,” the CJP explained, adding the Constitution did not bestow unlimited jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, let alone its chief justice.

The Constitution, the CJP said, did not grant him powers to decide cases unilaterally, since the court also consisted of other judges.

“The chief justice cannot substitute his wisdom for that of the Constitution, nor can his opinion prevail over other judges,” CJP Isa noted.

The judgement also rejected the term “master of the roster” — often used to describe past chief justices on the basis that they alone decided the formation of benches — arguing that it was not mentioned in the Constitution, any law or even in the Supreme Court Rules.

“History stands witness to the fact that when power is concentrated in an individual, disastrous consequences invariably follow,” CJP Isa observed, adding that “irreparable damage” was caused to the judiciary and the people of Pakistan when the legitimacy, integrity and credibility of the judiciary were undermined.

“If the people lose their trust in the judiciary, it will render decisions made by it mere words on paper, without credibility and moral authority.”

Imran’s petition for swift hearing against Toshakhana conviction turned down

Separately, an apex court bench comprising acting CJP Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Athar Minallah turned down a request to immediately fix for hearing an appeal filed by PTI chief Imran Khan against his conviction in the Toshakhana case.

The appeal was filed through senior counsel Sardar Latif Khosa and his son Sardar Shahbaz Khosa under Article 185 of the Constitution against the December 11 verdict of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) but the main plea in the application was to overturn the Aug 5 conviction by a trial court.

The request for an early hearing was made by counsel Sardar Shahbaz but he was told that the appeal could not be heard by a bench consisting of less than three judges.

The bench noted that most judges were not available in Islamabad due to winter vacations.

Justice Minallah reminded the counsel that even if the sentence awarded by the trial court was suspended, the conviction would not be erased.

He also noted that Imran’s appeal sought not only the suspension of the sentence but also the conviction itself, observing that there was no precedent in judicial history where both were suspended simultaneously.