Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday directed the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Usman Mansoor Awan to submit the record regarding National Assembly's (NA) debate on the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 by Tuesday.
The 8-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyad Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed resumed the hearing of the
In the previous hearing on May 2, CJP Bandial had turned down the attorney general's plea to withdraw the stay order restricting implementation on the bill, which the top court had passed on April 13.
The top court had also sought the NA proceedings records on the previous hearing, which couldn't be presented today.
During the proceedings today, AGP Awan reiterated the government's request to form a full court.
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) also filed a similar petition through advocate Salahuddin Ahmed.
In its plea, the PML-N has submitted that in addition to being a matter of great significance for a number of reasons, "it is also the first time in the history of Pakistan that an Act of Parliament has been restrained through interim order from coming into effect".
"To lastingly settle the law in relation to these complex issues, the collective wisdom of all the judges of this Court is necessary," the petition argued.
AGP Awan further argued that "matters concerning judicial independence and rules should be heard by the full court".
"The rules of the SC were created by the full court and they can be amended also by a full court," he stressed.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan however remarked that "the question is of legislative powers, not of amending the rules.
"Cases concerning legislative powers are heard routinely by various benches," he said.
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that "many cases are first of their kind", implying that this was not reason enough to constitute a full bench.
"Does the government wish to take advantage of the full court? Does the government want the internal disagreements of the court to come out?" she questioned, noting that "every case is important. Who is to decide which one of those should be heard by a full court and which ones should not?"
Justice Malik further questioned whether "every case of judicial independence was heard by a full court", to which the AGP responded in the negative but began to argue through the example of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry case.
Upon this Justice Mazahar Naqvi who said that that case was of a different nature.
"Are you trying to say that the people have faith in the full court?" said Justice Malik, "How could the court regulate its proceedings on the wishes of the petitioner?"
Justice Muneeb Akhtar also observed that the full court only has the power to make rules in administrative matters. "If a case concerning the interpretation of rules comes before a three-judge bench, should it also be heard by the full court?" he retorted.
AGP Awan said that in the present case, the legislative authority is being challenged.
Justice Malik said that your logic is incomprehensible, the decision of the full court will be good and the decision of the 3-member bench will be bad.
At one point, CJP Bandial asked the AGP if he had submitted a parliamentary record of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure Bill) 2023. To this, the court was informed that the record of the parliamentary proceedings is expected by available by tomorrow as Speaker’s office has been contacted both formally and informally.
Presenting the PML-N's case, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed said that the rules of the SC do not structure the power of the CJ to form a bench. He also objected to the bench's constitution in the present case.
Upon Justice Ahsan remarked that "you want the court to decide which cases will be heard by which bench. If you open this Pandora's box, full court requests will flood the courts."
The court then directed the AGP to submit the parliamentary proceedings’ record by tomorrow and adjourned the hearing for three weeks.
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, which is 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.
On April 13, the SC issued notices to the federal government, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, political parties, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
Regarding exercising the apex court’s original jurisdiction, the bill said that any matter invoking the use of Article 184(3) would first be placed before the above mentioned committee.
The bill says that if the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to the 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.
On matters where the interpretation of the Constitution is required, the bill said the above mentioned committee would compose a bench comprising no less than five apex court judges for the task.
Regarding appeals for any verdict by an apex court bench that exercised Article 184(3)‘s jurisdiction, the bill said that the appeal will lie within 30 days of the bench’s order to a larger Supreme Court bench. It added that the appeal would be fixed for hearing within a period not exceeding 14 days.
It added that this right of appeal would also extend retrospectively to those aggrieved persons against whom an order was made under Article 184(3) prior to the commencement of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023, on the condition that the appeal was filed within 30 days of the act’s commencement.
