Supreme Court debates legislative powers in live full-bench hearing

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, is currently conducting its third hearing on the contentious Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act case.

The court witnessed a riveting exchange of arguments as lawyer Adnan Khan presented his case before the bench. The proceedings revolved around the fundamental right affected by a particular law, with Justice Athar Minallah actively engaging with the lawyer.

Justice Athar Minallah sought clarification on which fundamental right had been impacted by the law in question, and subsequently inquired about the specific fundamental right that Khan was defending.

Khan emphatically asserted that Parliament held no power to legislate in this matter, contending that the legislation in question had repercussions for all fundamental rights. He pointed out that the Act in question violated Article 4 of Access to Justice.

During the course of the proceedings, Khan raised concerns about the Supreme Court’s procedural approach to urgent cases, asserting that the Court had departed from its traditional decision-making process.

SC resumes hearing on Practice and Procedure Act Case

Chief Justice inquired about the formation of a case management committee and questioned if it constituted a violation of the constitution. Justice Athar Minallah also highlighted the prolonged appeal against the Peshawar High Court’s decision regarding detention centers, which had remained pending for four years.

Justice Athar Minallah further questioned why legislation was not being passed when significant cases remained undecided, prompting the Chief Justice to ask for alternative solutions. The lawyer for the petitioner, Imtiaz Siddiqui, voiced objections regarding the allocation of time for arguments.

Justice Munib Akhtar recommended that the entire judgment be considered instead of relying on a single sentence in a legal reference. The debate delved into constitutional powers, and whether Parliament had the authority to legislate changes that could impact the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

The lawyers presented contrasting perspectives, with some arguing that Parliament could extend the scope of existing law, while others contested this assertion.

The discussion also centered on the term “Master of Rooster,” with Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa emphasising that the Constitution and the law were not subject to the whims of the Chief Justice. The bench debated the ramifications of bench formation and the appointment of cases, with some lawyers contending that this authority did not fall within the Chief Justice’s constitutional mandate.

Lawyer Salahuddin concluded his arguments regarding the powers of the Chief Justice and the formation of benches, sparking further deliberations on the historical context and legislative history related to this matter.