An eight-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed, heard the pleas.
At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman requested the bench to constitute a full court.
AGP Mansoor Usman Awan informed the court that a plea had been filed for the formation of a full court to hear the case. “The PML-N has also filed a petition for the formation of a full court,” he said.
AGP Mansoor Usman Awan informed the court that a plea had been filed for the formation of a full court to hear the case. “The PML-N has also filed a petition for the formation of a full court,” he said.
Justice Ahsan remarked that the government’s petition had not yet been fixed for hearing. He asked the AGP whether the documents sought by the court at the previous hearing had been submitted.
Awan replied that he had formally and informally approached the speaker’s office. “The judiciary’s independence is a fundamental element of the Constitution. Judicial independence is a fundamental component of the Constitution,” the AGP added.
The AGP contended that the constitution of the benches and the matter of appeals were fixed in the law. “The right to change counsel has also been given in the court reforms bill. The matters decided in the law are of administrative nature,” he said and argued that the SC’s rules were formulated by a full court.
On the previous hearing, CJP Bandial had turned down the attorney general's plea to withdraw the stay order restricting implementation on the bill, the top court had passed on April 13.
During the course of the proceedings, PML-N's lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed informed the court that they have also filed a similar plea.
At this, Justice Ahsan remarked that the PML-N's petition had not yet been allocated a registration number.
CJP Bandial inquired from AGP Usman if he had submitted the record of the National Assembly’s proceedings which the court had sought at the last hearing.
Regarding the query, the AGP said that they expected the records to be received by tomorrow (Tuesday). He informed the court that they had contacted the National Assembly Speaker’s office in this regard.
AGP Awan argued that the court had declared that the basic structure of the Constitution was present. The judicial reform law involves the matter of the formation of benches and appeals, he said.
The bill also gives the right to change the lawyer, he added.
He further stated that the matters decided in the bill were of administrative nature and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedures) Act, 2023, could be amended by a full court.
He said that cases related to the independence of the judiciary and rules should also be heard by a full court.
Moreover, the law will also apply directly to judges who are not hearing the case.
At this, Justice Ahsan remarked that the question was not about the amendments, but whether there were such legislative powers or not.
Meanwhile, Justice Naqvi inquired if there had been any legislation like the bill in question in the past.
At this, the AGP maintained that the president's permission was required to make the rules until 1973.
Responding to this, Justice Naqvi objected that how can such a legislation be done in the presence of Article 191 of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, Justice Mazhar remarked that the government's plea had stated that this case was the "first case of its kind".
The bill aimed at regulating the powers of the CJP, was approved by the Parliament during a joint sitting on April 10.
The National Assembly, on April 21, notified the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 as an act.
The bill's implementation was halted by the same bench hearing the case today.
The top court on April 13 had stopped the implementation of the law observing that if the law received the assent of the president, the bill would not be acted upon in any manner till further order.
“The moment that the Bill receives the assent of the President or (as the case may be) it is deemed that such assent has been given, then from that very moment onwards and till further orders, the Act that comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect nor be acted upon in any manner,” read the nine-page interim order issued on April 13.
In its order, the bench stated that the facts and circumstances presented here are extraordinary both in import and effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment