SC Postpones Hearing on Practice and Procedure Act Case, Parties Directed to Submit Responses

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan convened to hear petitions challenging the newly enacted Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023. The Act proposes the establishment of benches for constitutional matters of public importance, to be formed by a committee of three senior judges from the court.

Chaired by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the full court bench has decided to postpone the hearing of the Practice and Procedure Act case until October 3, allowing all parties involved to prepare thoroughly. The Supreme Court has directed the parties to submit their responses by September 25, a week before the rescheduled hearing date.

Chief Justice Isa emphasized that lawyers who had already submitted their responses need not do so again, but all parties’ lawyers must submit any additional responses before the given deadline. The chief justice expressed his intention to consult with senior judges to form benches for the case.

Federal Government’s Stand Against the Act

During the initial proceedings, the federal government petitioned for the rejection of the petitions challenging the Practice and Procedure Act. The government argued that these challenges to Parliament’s law are not admissible and should be dismissed.

According to the federal government’s written reply submitted to the Supreme Court, Article 191 of the Constitution grants Parliament the authority to legislate, and the Act does not hinder the judiciary’s independence. The government contended that no powers granted under the Act have been revoked by the Supreme Court, and the requests challenging the law are not admissible according to Parliament.

Petitioners’ Arguments and Court’s Questions

The hearing featured arguments from the petitioners’ counsel, Khawaja Tariq Rahim, who expressed hope for a harmonious collaboration between the bench, judges, and the bar. The chief justice extended an apology for the delay in the proceedings and emphasized the importance of transparency, highlighting the live coverage of the case.

During the hearing, the judges raised several questions regarding the Act, including its impact on the powers of the Chief Justice, the right to appeal, and whether Parliament has the authority to enact such legislation. The petitioners argued that the law requires a constitutional amendment to grant the right of appeal, and the Act is non-constitutional.

Justice Munib Akhtar questioned the definition of public interest and whose interests the petitioners were representing. The exchange between the judges and the petitioners’ counsel delved deep into constitutional matters and the Act’s implications on the judiciary’s powers.

Attorney General’s Perspective

Attorney General Mansoor Usman also presented arguments in favor of the Practice and Procedure Act, emphasizing that it brings transparency to the judicial system and is meant to resolve significant public issues. He contended that the law grants all powers to the Supreme Court and does not undermine fundamental rights.

The Attorney General referred to other countries’ practices, including India, Bangladesh, and the United States, where legislative authority over judicial matters exists. He argued that Parliament has enacted the Act to ensure transparency and that petitions against the law are not admissible.

A 15-Member Full Court Hearing

The case is being heard by a 15-member full court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa. The full court includes a panel of esteemed judges who are thoroughly reviewing the matter.

Before the hearing, a Full Court meeting addressed various legal agenda items, including undertrial cases, reference foundations, streaming of court proceedings, and guidelines to enhance the efficiency of case hearings. The meeting also granted permission for the live streaming of the Practice and Procedure Act case, allowing media representatives to witness the proceedings.

This case has garnered significant attention both nationally and internationally, and its outcome will have far-reaching implications for the country’s legal system.