PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Tuesday issued notices to attorney general for Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general, seeking their response to a petition challenging Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance, 2024, and stopping the federal government from tabling any constitutional amendment bill.

A bench consisting of PHC Chief Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Wiqar Ahmad fixed Oct 15 for next hearing of the petition, observing that it would also decide whether the matter should be heard by a larger bench or a division-bench.

The bench observed that as vires of law were challenged, therefore, it was necessary to issue notices to attorney general and advocate general under section 27-A of Code of Civil Procedure.

The petition was filed by Peshawar District Bar Association through its vice president Abdul Haseeb, requesting the court to declare the amendments made in the law through SC (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance, 2024, as unconstitutional.

Petitioner also requests court to block tabling of constitutional amendment bill

The petitioner requested the court that as the two houses of parliament were incomplete, the federal government should be restrained from introducing any bill for amendment of the Constitution.

It is pertinent to mention that so far multiple petitions have been filed against the said ordinance in Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as high courts.

Advocates Qazi Mohammad Anwar and Chaudhry Ishtiaq A Khan appeared for the petitioner and stated that the President of Pakistan had promulgated SC (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance on Sep 20, 2024, through which impugned changes were made in SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, which was in violation of Articles 9, 10-A, 14, 25 of Constitution.

They stated that through the ordinance the government changed the composition of the committee that formed benches and fixed cases under the Act.

They said that the committee originally consisted of chief justice and two senior-most judges of the court, but now it would consist of chief justice, the next most senior judge, and a judge picked by the chief justice. They said that there was no emergency situation, which required promulgation of an ordinance.

Mr Ishtiaq contended that all orders or actions taken pursuant to the impugned ordinance were in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

He pointed out that Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) failed to hold elections to Senate from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, thus the upper house of parliament was incomplete. Similarly, he stated, the judgement of Supreme Court about allocation of reserved seats to Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf was also not implemented by ECP, due to which the composition of National Assembly was incomplete.

He contended that any attempt to introduce a constitutional amendment bill could disrupt the entire constitutional system.

The bench wondered how he could challenge any proposed amendments to the Constitution when the bill was yet to be tabled and passed by the parliament.

The counsel stated that the government intended to change the basic structure of the Constitution due to which all the major bar associations were averse to the expected amendments.

He pointed out that drastic changes would be made to the Constitution and even a judge of high court could be then transferred to another high court without his consent.

He questioned as to how a constitutional amendment bill could be passed when the parliament was incomplete. He added that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was also not having required representation in Senate.

Published in Dawn, October 9th, 2024