Every institution is responsible for conducting self-accountability, remarked Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday as the top court resumed hearing on petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act 2023.
The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow (Wednesday) after the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan’s (MQM-P) counsel Faisal Siddiqi completed arguments in favour of the law.
The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) are due to present arguments at the next hearing.
Questions have been raised on parliament’s competence to regulate the administrative workings of the Supreme Court (SC) as well as transparency in the workings of the judiciary in previous hearings.
The law in question, passed by the parliament in April 2023, regulates discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) by requiring a committee of three senior judges of the apex court, including the CJP, to form benches for constitutional matters of public importance and taking suo motu notice.
A full court led by CJP Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarrat Hilali, has taken up nine review petitions against the 2023 Act.
Read Regulating CJ’s powers: Will SC finally accept parliament’s competence?
The petitioners view the law as an attempt to clip the powers of the CJP and pave the way for parliament’s interference in the internal workings of the apex court.
Today (Tuesday) was the fourth hearing on the matter, which has been live telecasted since the proceedings began.
The court intended to conclude the case today but the hearing was adjourned due to time constraints.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, Faisal Siddiqi contended that the petitions should be dismissed on merit while acknowledging that they were maintainable.
He maintained that an intra court appeal was “liberating” and both the apex court and parliament could provide for them.
At this, Justice Ahsan said that the basic principle was that an appellate for the right of appeal is provided by the statute which conferred the jurisdiction in the first place. Here, it is the Constitution creating the statute and if the right to appeal is provided it should be provided by the same jurisidiction – the Constitution – and not by a sub-constitutional legislation, he said.
During the hearing, CJP Isa expressed regret that despite four hearings, it was the court’s performance that the case had not concluded.
At one point, he asked his fellow judges to allow the counsel to complete his arguments when Justice Akhtar questioned Siddiqi in the middle of his argument.
This prompted Justice Akhtar to register his own objection at being “interrupted all the time”.
When asked by the CJP whether any political party voted against the law under review, Siddiqi apprised the court that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had opposed in the Senate.
The CJP also questioned whether the SC rules were binding on an apex court bench. Siddiqi replied in the affirmative.
Meanwhile, Justice Minallah noted that the separation of powers was limited to the judiciary. “What if the judiciary starts encroaching upon the powers of the legislature…so the Parliament is empowered to legislate and all that they have legislated is something that ensures access to justice,” he asked.
Justice Hilali observed that excercising of jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution had shaken the fundamentals of the country.
At one point, CJP Isa remarked that all power would be vested in the CJP, not in the full court because the latter would be dependent on whether the former calls a meeting for it or not.
He asked whether parliament could be intervened if the CJP does not summon a meeting of the full court to ammend SC rules.
Siddiqi argued that the independence of the judiciary would not be threatened if the role of the CJP was reduced.
He contended that there was nothing in the law in question which made the parliament the master of the roster. “In terms, there is no constitutional provision that gives this elated position to the CJP…for example giving the power to constitute benches to a three-member committee, how does that violate the independence of the judiciary?”
During the hearing Justice Ahsan remained consistent that if the right to appeal was provided under Article 184 (3) then the Constitution should be amended.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar observed that the problem is not the creation of the committee of three senior judges but the fact that it was created by parliament, which made the legislature the master of the roster.
The CJP observed that every institution was responsible to conduct self-accountability.
Previous hearing
On Monday’s hearing, CJP Isa observed that parliament’s intent should not be doubted. He remarked that parliament should not be prevented from doing good just because it lacked two-third majority.
He further added that the chief justice of Pakistan should not go beyond the Constitution and the law.
While presenting arguments in his individual capacity, Dr Adnan Khan said that the office of the chief justice had been rendered redundant through the Act. Under the Constitution, the chief justice was in the driving seat in administrative matters.
PML-Q lawyer Zahid Ibrahim, while arguing in favour of the legislation, said that the constitutional powers of this court had not been reduced under the Act. He added that the petitioners, who had challenged the legislation, had not said anything as to which fundamental right was affected by the Act.
PML-N lawyer Barrister Salahuddin said that several chief justices and judges had shown reservations to the use of the Article 184(3) of the Constitution, adding that the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) had been demanding for 10 years for regulating the powers of the chief justice.
Rana Shahid Advocate raised the point that if the 15 judges of the apex court decide the case, where would the appeal go? The chief justice replied that the appeal would not go anywhere, rather it would go to Allah.
During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that through this legislation, parliament had been made the master of roster. The chief justice remarked that he was the master of the roster, but also the servant to the Constitution and answerable to Allah.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the age of the masters has ended all over the world and “now we must wake up”. He cited examples of many countries, including the United States and Brazil, where the judiciary conducted its affairs with mutual consultation.
Justice Akhtar said that masters come and go, and no one remains a master forever.
Chief Justice Isa remarked that another chief justice would leave the office in October next year – a reference to his own self. He then said: “The question is, how will we respond to those who have been harmed?”
Barrister Salahuddin said that several chief justices and judges had expressed reservations to the use of the Article 184(3) – which relates to the suo motu powers of the apex court. He said it was not written in the Constitution that the chief justice had the authority to appoint a bench and to hear cases.
He pointed out that since the 1960s, powers of the Supreme Court were expanded by reducing the authority of the chief justice as master of roster. He also gave an example of India, where four Supreme Court judges held a press conference against their chief justice in January 2018.
The chief justice said that it was to be seen what the Supreme Court of India decided on the case against the special status of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. He said that Practice and Procedure Act appointed two co-pilots with the chief justice.
However, he added that it could not be said that parliament did it maliciously, parliament enacted the legislation in good faith. The PML-N lawyer, agreed, saying that the independence of the judiciary was strengthened by the legislation.
Read more CJP Isa seeks input on judges’ appointment criteria
Justice Minallah inquired whether the cases, which had already been reviewed, would also have the right to appeal. Barrister Salahuddin replied that the cases in which the revisions had been dismissed could not benefit from this legislation.
The right to appeal would be granted on only those decisions which had been taken 30 days before the law was enacted. However, he added that the court might limit the right to appeal by framing rules on the basis on this law.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Zuberi said that if the right to appeal was made available since 1973, it would increase the burden of cases on the Supreme Court. However, the chief justice said the burden would fall on the court “why are you panicking”.
Justice Ahsan inquired if the decision of the three-member committee [of the apex court judges] was administrative, then who would hear the appeal? Justice Mandokhel said that the appeal could be made possible by amending the rules.
During the hearing, Barrister Salahuddin completed his arguments, while lawyers of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) adopted the arguments for the act.