Welivego

ISLAMABAD: According to WELIVEGO News, the Supreme Court's full court, which consists of all 15 of the court's judges, has for the first time in the nation's judicial history permitted live telecast of hearings on a series of petitions contesting the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, the contentious law that aims to limit the country's top judge's suo motu authority. 

The hearing on the petitions is currently taking place, and it is being broadcast live on state channel PTV by the full court, presided over by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qaez Faez Isa.

The petitions asking for a full court hearing on the petitions were deemed admissible by the supreme court. According to CJP Isa, the full court meeting was where the decision was made to convene a full court hearing. 

CJP Isa stated at the hearing that since a new bench had been formed, the case's arguments will start over.

CJP Isa noted that three applications to form a full court had been approved.

Mansoor Usman Awan, the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), provided the federal government's response in the case prior to the hearing today, urging the court to deny the petitions challenging the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act.

"Petitions opposing acts of the legislature are not permitted. The government's response stated that the petitions challenging the Practice and Procedure Act "should be dismissed."

In advance of the proceedings, the decision was reached in the full court meeting, sources told WELIVEGO News.

Five cameras were put in the first courtroom in order to do this. In addition to the one installed for the lawyers' rostrum in front of the judges' docks, there were four cameras mounted in the visitors' gallery.

People come to the Supreme Court to find solutions to their issues, CJP Isa told the SC personnel when he arrived at the top court in his personal vehicle without following protocol. Consider all visitors as guests.

He added that it was important to keep access to justice available.

It was heard

The CJP noted at the beginning of the hearing that there were nine applications and asked Advocate Khawaja Tariq Rahim to begin his remarks.

Rahim was instructed to read the Act and "forget the past" by the CJP.

If the law is upheld, Justice Ayesha questioned the counsel about the impact of Section 5, which grants the right to appeal.

"Given that the matter would be heard by the entire bench. Will the appeal not be considered?

Rahim referred to the practice act when he said, "Parliament formed a committee of three judges to decide on the matters of public interest."

Justice Mandokhail responded by inquiring, "What does Article 191 of the Constitution say?

According to Khawaja, "The Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate," adding that the supreme court made its decisions with the consent of the entire court.

Justice Mansoor made the following remark as the Act was being read aloud: "What I understand of your point is that if all of this is done by the full court, then it is acceptable; if Parliament does this, then it is wrong."

"Can law override the chief justice's authority? Judge Musrat enquired.

In response, Justice Mandokhail questioned if the act eliminated the Supreme Court's or the Chief Justice's authority.

He told the lawyer, "My colleagues are asking you good questions," and urged him to take his time in replying.

Additionally, the CJP warned counsel Rahim to adhere to the law and chastised him for using his "personal opinion" throughout the arguments.

Talk about the law, not your "personal opinion," the CJP demanded.

He said, "Whose right can be taken away by this law?"

Rahim said that the Supreme Court's norms had been "interfered" with by parliament.

"Do you support what happened in the past?" Justice Athar questioned.

The CJP questioned the lawyer during the hearing whether he thought the entire statute was incorrect or just a few specific parts.

The lawyer responded, "The Supreme Court adopts its own standards of practice and procedure in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Federal Legislative List.

Was this power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution or by other legal provisions? Judge Mandokhel enquired.

Attorney Rahim indicated he will address the questions later.

"Is it not within the purview of the parliament to make this law?" Justice Athar afterwards questioned.

Do not desire unchecked power: CJP

The Chief Justice of Pakistan said: "This court runs on the taxes of the people." during the hearing.

The chief justice will gain if this law is overturned, the CJP claimed. He did, however, add, "A judge takes an oath to abide by the Constitution and the law."

He added that he did not desire to have absolute power in his capacity as the nation's top judge. The CJP stated, "Rs6.5 billion dollars were lost as a result of the court's ruling in the Reko Diq case. As chief justice, I do not want such authority."

"I haven't vowed to follow the Supreme Court's rulings. He declared, "I have sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution.

Law is not anti-SC.

After a brief break, the attorney general made an argument in front of the court that the petitions were not admissible.

According to him, the statute was intended to bring "democratic transparency" to the institution and dealt with the authority of one office, not the entire judiciary.

In addition, he argued that the statute genuinely served the public interest, contrary to what the petitioners claimed.

The AGP also contended that the Act did not actually limit the power of the institution as a whole because it did not involve or impose any external checks or institutions.

Case history

The statute, which addresses the supreme court's authority in public interest cases and aims to curtail the Chief Justice of Pakistan's suo moto authority, was put on hold by an eight-member Supreme Court bench on April 13.

The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act and the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023, which governs the right of appeal in suo motu cases, were compared during the previous hearing in June. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan suggested that parliament consider "harmonising" the two laws.

The then-CJP noted that the federal government should take the top court into mind while crafting any law linked to the judiciary, even if he welcomed the plan.

A law

A three-member committee made up of senior judges, including the chief justice, was given the authority by the law to take sou motu notice. Additionally, it included the ability to appeal and attempted to make the Supreme Court's proceedings transparent.

The Act specified that every case, matter, or appeal before the Supreme Court would be considered and decided by a bench chosen by a committee made up of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the two senior-most justices.

It further stated that a majority vote would be required for committee decisions.

According to the Act, any subject involving the application of Article 184(3) would first be presented to the committee before the top court's original jurisdiction could be exercised.

According to the Act, the committee would assemble a bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court for cases requiring the interpretation of the Constitution.

According to the Act, appeals for any judgment rendered by an apex court bench exercising its authority under Article 184(3) must be made to a bigger SC bench within 30 days after the panel's ruling. It further stated that a hearing on the appeal would be scheduled for a time frame no longer than 14 days.

On the proviso that the appeal was lodged within 30 days of the order's issuance, it was added that this right of appeal would also apply retroactively to those wronged parties against whom an Article 184(3) order had been made before the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 into effect.

In addition, the Act stated that a party would be allowed to select the legal representative it wanted to represent it when submitting a review application under Article 188 of the Constitution.

Additionally, it stipulates that a hearing date must be set for an application arguing urgency or requesting interim relief that is submitted in a cause, appeal, or other case within 14 days after the date of filing.