ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 was introduced on Tuesday by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar in an effort to curtail the top judge of Pakistan’s discretionary powers to take suo motu notice. A day prior, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court questioned the CJP’s authority, saying the high court “cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice.”
“This court cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice, but must be regulated through a rule-based system approved by all judges of the court under Article 191 of the Constitution,” Justice Shah and Justice Mandokhail wrote in a 27-page dissenting note for the apex court’s March 1 verdict in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suo motu.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also called for parliamentary action in this regard during his speech on the house floor during the NA session, referring to the dissenting note as “a ray of hope.” The prime minister, whose party, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, has accused the judiciary of “bench-fixing,” said that “the voices for change stemming from the judiciary itself is certainly a ray of hope for the country.” Speaking on the floor of the house, the law minister claimed that the actions taken under the guise of suo motu notices had damaged the apex court’s reputation. In the past, several review cases were postponed and not scheduled for hearing, according to the statement, “We have even seen that era when suo motu notices were taken on trivial matters.”
Building on the argument, he said that the two judges’ dissenting opinions have raised more questions. Tarar further stated that decisions made pursuant to suo motu notices were not subject to earlier appeal. The law minister said, “The Parliament has always demanded that the right to appeal should be given. It is important to provide the opportunity to challenge an order. The NA Standing Committee on Law and Justice will meet tomorrow (Wednesday) morning under the chairmanship of Chaudhry Mahmood Bashir Virk after receiving the proposed bill from the house for further consideration. It will be returned to the lower house by the committee. The bill will be forwarded to the Senate for approval after the NA has approved it.
The bill includes shifting the powers of taking suo motu notice from the chief justice to a three-member committee comprising three senior judges.
Moreover, the bill also includes a clause regarding the right of challenging the decision which could be filed within 30 days and will then be fixed for a hearing in two weeks’ time.
According to the bill — every clause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by the committee comprising the CJP and two senior judges, in order of seniority.
The bill also mentioned that the decision of the committee shall be by the majority. However, the two SC judges in their detailed notes had juxtaposed majority rule with “dictatorship”.
They said: “Taking all decisions only by majority rule is no less dictatorship, and the absolutist approach to controversial issues is the hallmark of extremists.”
It was also mentioned in the bill that any matter invoking the exercise of original jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution shall be placed before the committee constituted under section 2 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 which may also include the members of the committee, for adjudication of the matter.
Meanwhile, in matters where interpretation of the constitutional provision is involved, the committee shall constitute a bench comprising not less than five judges of the apex court.
The bill also grants the party to appoint counsel of its choice for filing a review application under Article 188 of the Constitution. It should be noted that the counsel, for this purpose, shall mean an advocate of the Supreme Court.
“An application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief, filed in a cause, appeal or matter, shall be fixed for hearing within fourteen days from the date of its filing,” the bill read.
