ISLAMABAD: All eyes are on the Supreme Court judges as to how they react to the enforcement of “Supreme Court Practice and Proce dure Act, 2023” that will be a contentious question when the apex court resumes its work after the Eid vacations next week.
The parliament passed the law in the wake of a judgment by a bench led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa that recommended decentralization of the suo motu and powers, currently in the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, though a larger bench under the CJP overruled the earlier verdict.
The bill now stands enacted with some amendments after the present twice refused to sign it into law, notwithstanding the fact a CJP-led bench barred the enforcement of this law even before its passage.
The law, whose enforcement has been barred, requires establishment of a panel three senior most judges panel of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice to fix benches for taking up different cases.
When implemented, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood would be constitute the panel until the superannuation of the Chief Justice in mid-September.
In case a member of the panel is absent, the two remaining judges could take decision since quorum would be of two judges.
Constitutional experts have maintained that the government has ignored the verdict of eight members bench that ruled against the law.
Incidentally, the constitution of eight-member bench was also termed as disputed by many in the legal fraternity who contended the “Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023” meets old demand of the legal community, and they overvehemently welcomed the legislation, the sources said.
The law was passed first by the National Assembly and Senate last month. It was consigned to the President for his assent but he returned it for review to the Parliament without giving his assent.
Eleven days ago, the two houses of the Parliament in their joint siting adopted the bill again unanimously with an amendment. The bill was again sent to the President for his assent but three days ago he again returned it without giving his assent.
According to Article 75 (2) of the Constitution, “When the President has returned a Bill to the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), it shall be reconsidered by the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) in joint sitting and, if it is again passed, with or without amendment, by the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), by the votes of the majority of the members of both Houses present and voting; it shall be deemed for the purposes of the Constitution to have been passed by both Houses and shall be presented to the President, and the President shall give his assent within ten days, failing which such assent shall be deemed to have been given.” Consequently, the bill turned into an Act on April 19.
The piece of legislation provides that “every cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by a Committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior most judges in order of seniority.”
It further states any matter invoking exercise of original jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution shall be first placed before the committee for examination and if the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights is involved then it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the apex court , which may also include the members of the committee for adjudication of the matter.
The Act says that an appeal shall lie within 30 days from the final order of a bench of the Supreme Court, who exercised jurisdiction to the larger bench of the apex court and such appeal shall for hearing be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days.
Furthermore, it grants a party the right to appoint counsel of its choice for filing a review application. An application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief filed in a cause, appeal or matter shall be fixed for hearing within 14 days from the date of its filing.
The law was piloted by Law and Justice Minister Azam Nazir Tarar.
According to the law, constitution of benches, every cause lists, appeal, or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by the committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior judges of the Supreme Court, in order of seniority. The decision of the Committee shall be by majority.
Regarding the exercise of original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, any matter invoking the exercise of original jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution shall be first placed before the Committee for examination, and if the Committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the supreme court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the committee, for adjudication of the matter.
The law says that an appeal shall lie within thirty days from a final order of a bench of the Supreme Court which exercised jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution to a larger bench of the Supreme Court and such appeal shall, for hearing, be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days. About right to appoint counsel of choice, a party shall have the right to appoint counsel of its choice for filing a review application under Article 188 of the constitution.
An application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief, filed in a cause lists, appeals or matters, shall be fixed for hearing within fourteen days from the date of its filing.
It states that the provision of this act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules or regulations for the time being in force or judgment of any Court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.
According to the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, “Whereas, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under clause (3) of Article 184 of the constitution has been a subject of discussion by various forums with respect to invoking of suo motu powers, the constitution of benches and the absence of right of appeal. Whereas, applications filed for early hearing of a case are not fixed for hearing and it is expedient to address this issue. Also, it is the right of every citizen under article 10A of the constitution to appoint a counsel of his choice which ought to review cases filed under Article 188 of the Constitution”.
