Supreme Court Bill; Order to furnish record of parliamentary proceedings to Attorney General by tomorrow

Islamabad: In the hearing of petitions against the Supreme Court Practice and Procedural Bill, the Supreme Court ordered the Attorney General to provide the record of the proceedings of the Parliamentary and Standing Committee by tomorrow.

An 8-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan heard the petitions against the “Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill”, at the beginning of which Attorney General Mansoor Awan came to the rostrum. On this occasion, Fawad Chaudhry also appeared in the court on behalf of PTI.

The Attorney General, giving arguments, said that an application has been filed to constitute a full court. During the hearing, Muslim League-N also submitted an application to the court for the formation of a full court.

Also read this news: The government’s decision not to release the record of the parliamentary proceedings of the Supreme Court Bill

The Attorney General said that the constitution of the benches and the matter of appeals have been fixed in the law. The right to change counsel is also given in the Judicial Reforms Bill. The matters decided in the law are of administrative nature. The rules of the Supreme Court were created by the Full Court. The Supreme Court Rules can also be amended by the Full Court. Decisions and cases related to the independence and rules of the judiciary should also be heard by the full court. The law will also apply directly to judges who are not hearing the case.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that the question is of legislative powers, not of amending the rules. Legislative power cases are routinely heard by various Benches. Justice Mazahir Naqvi asked whether such legislation had been passed in the past, to which the Attorney General replied that until 1992, the permission of the President was required to make the rules. Justice Mazahir Naqvi inquired that how can such a legislation be made in the presence of Article 91?

The Attorney General said the President’s authorization was withdrawn. The provision of making the rules in accordance with the constitution and law was retained. Such a case never came in the past, so a full court should be constituted.

Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that many cases are first of their kind. Any bench of the Supreme Court can hear any case. Does the government want to take advantage of the full court? Does the government want the internal discussion of the court to come out? Every case is important. How can one be sure which case will be heard by the full court? Was every case of judicial independence heard by the full court?

The Attorney General said that not all cases of judicial independence were heard by the full court. Justice Mazahir Naqvi said that the Iftikhar Chaudhry case was of a different nature.

The Chief Justice remarked that apparently it is not your case that a full court should be constituted. Justice Ayesha Malik said, “Are you trying to say that the people have faith in the full court?” How the court should regulate its proceedings on the wishes of the petitioner.

read more: Request for parliamentary records on the Supreme Court Bill, request to separate Justice Naqvi, to form a full court was rejected

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the Full Court has the authority to make rules in administrative matters. If a case of interpretation of rules comes before a 3-judge bench, should it also be heard by the full court? The full court has made its rules.

The Attorney General said that the legislative authority is challenged in the present case. Justice Ayesha Malik said that your logic is incomprehensible, the decision of the full court will be good and the decision of the 3-member bench will be bad.

Justice Ejaz-ul-Hassan said that your logic is that if the rules are made by the full court, then the interpretation should be the same. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the answer to the full court has been given by the parliament itself in the law it has made. According to the Judicial Reforms Bill, a 5-member bench will hear the case of interpretation of the Constitution. Either you say that Parliament has made the law wrong.

The Attorney General said that the court has stopped the implementation of the law, on which Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if there was no injunction, where would the request of the full court go? Parliament says to have a 5-member bench, Attorney General says to have a full court. It seems that the government has lost count of how many judges are sitting here.

The Attorney General said that the full court can be requested if deemed appropriate. At least 5 judges are written in the law. Justice Muneeb Akhtar inquired that the Parliament is satisfied with 5 judges, so why not the Attorney General? Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that the court normally hears petitions against the laws. The High Court also hears petitions against laws. Has a full court been requested in the High Court as well?

Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi remarked that this is not the first case of its kind. A similar case has been heard in 2012 as well.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar inquired whether 60 judges will hear in Lahore High Court and 40 judges in Sindh High Court.

The Attorney General said that the Judicial Reforms Bill will not be challenged in the High Court and will not be discussed.

Justice Mazahir Naqvi said that it is written in the full court petition that the bench has given its mind in the injunction. Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said that if the Supreme Court gives a decision, the High Courts will be bound to form a full court. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if the provincial assembly also makes such a law, will the entire High Court hear the case?

Justice Ayesha Malik inquired whether all 8 judges will decide that a full court will be formed. Justice Shahid Waheed said whether the bench can order the Chief Justice to form a full court. Justice Ayesha Malik said that there is also a question on whether the request to form a full court is admissible. Can such a request be made at the administrative level?

The Attorney General said that the judges can request the Chief Justice to form a full court. Justice Shahid Waheed remarked that in the petition you are requesting the Chief Justice to order. Can the court order the Chief Justice? What kind of order can the court give on such a request?

The Attorney General said that in the past, a full court has been formed on such a request. Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi said that there are reservations on the plea made in the request for the formation of the full court.

The Chief Justice remarked that the request made in the petition was not well worded, but the court understood it.

The Attorney General said that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had objected to the bench in his execution case. The judge objected and a 9-member full court heard the case.

Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi said that the reasons are also given in the decision that he is referring to.

The Attorney General said that the then Chief Justice Anwar Haq rejected the objection. The 9-member full court included the Chief Justice himself. There is no objection to any judge or chief justice in the present application.

The Chief Justice said that if there is an objection, the judge has to decide whether to hear the case or not.

The Attorney General said that he has submitted his proposals regarding the formation of the Full Court.

The Chief Justice remarked that it was for the future to determine under what circumstances the bench could ask for the constitution of a full court. The court needs more support in this regard.

The Attorney General said that the matter is not only about the interpretation of the Constitution. In the constitutional amendment case, the court had declared the military courts valid.

The Chief Justice said that the present case is not constitutional. The Attorney General said that the court decision is for the future. After 20 years, the ground conditions and constitution may be different.

The arguments of the Attorney General on the formation of the full court were completed, after which the lawyer of the PML-N, Barrister Salahuddin, started the arguments and said that the implementation of the law has been stopped for the first time through the injunction. Bench applications for the full court are normal. A full court bench was also constituted in the Justice Faiz Isa case.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that the matter of Justice Faiz Isa’s case was referred to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice himself was not hearing the Justice Faiz Isa case.

Barrister Salahuddin added in arguments that the 7-member bench had directed to constitute a full court. Sometimes the bench itself sends the file to the Chief Justice to constitute the full court.

The Chief Justice said that Iftikhar Chaudhry and Justice Faiz Isa cases were on presidential reference. If the judges are accused, the trial is by the Supreme Court. The full court was constituted only when the matter was of a serious nature. References against both the judges were declared null and void by the Supreme Court. If there is an example of full court in any other case, give it.

Muslim League-N’s lawyer Barrister Salahuddin further said that a full court was also constituted in the IG jails case.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the judge was deposed in the Iftikhar Chaudhry case. They could not exercise the authority of the Master of the Rooster. Acting Chief Justice was exercising this power after his removal. Muslim League-N is the largest party in Parliament.

Barrister Salahuddin said that the rules of the Supreme Court do not structure the power of the Chief Justice to form a bench.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that this law has been made by the Parliament and it talks about a 5-member bench. How can the Muslim League plead for a full court?

Barrister Salahuddin said that the Chief Justice orders the formation of benches. Justice Ayesha Malik said that cases come on a daily basis. The court decides on Silen’s objections. The lawyer said that there are many judgments based on partiality. Justice Ayesha Malik said that Cylians appear in court and present their position.

During the hearing, Muslim League-N raised objection to the present bench in the petition. The lawyer said in the argument that Silen also submits a written application regarding his position.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that you want the court to decide which cases will be heard by which bench. If you open Pandora’s box, full court requests will come in the case. Justice Ayesha Malik remarked not to give sweeping arguments. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said, “Does the PML-N have any objection to the current bench? You have mentioned it in your application.”

Barrister Salahuddin said that a full court was formed even in exceptional cases. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that you are behind, this is also an unusual case.

Later, after hearing the arguments of the Attorney General and Muslim League-N’s counsel, the Chief Justice ordered the Attorney General to provide the records of the proceedings of the Parliament and the Standing Committee and postponed further hearing of the Judicial Reforms Bill for an indefinite period.