ISLAMABAD, Oct 10 (APP): The top court on Tuesday sought arguments from the attorney general of Pakistan on Wednesday (tomorrow) in petitions against the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023.
A 15-member full court bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa resumed hearing on the petitions against the act.
During the course of the proceeding, Muttahida Qaumi Movement Pakistan (MQMP)’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui gave his arguments.
The CJP questioned that whether the judges giving the verdict in any case can’t hear the appeal in it. If a two-member bench sends a matter to the referee judge on a difference, then the third judge also has to listen to the
lawyer, he asked.
Can the Chief Justice order that the three judges sit and decide again, he inquired.
He further questioned that if the chief justice has the power to form a bench or not. Does the review case have to be heard by the same judges who have heard the case before. Will the inclusion of judges hearing main cases on a larger bench mean that half of the judges are hearing review cases and half are hearing cases for the first time?
The CJP asked the lawyer whether any bench of the top court can make rules of the SC. In one case, the bench of the Supreme Court said that the full court can make rules, he said and questioned what would happen if the chief justice did not call the full court despite the order of the bench.
The chief justice asked the lawyer to explain the simple things in simple words and interpret the constitution keeping in mind the constitution. Justice Musrrat Hilali said that there are very limited articles of the constitution in which the word subject to law was used, whenever article 184/3 was used it shook the foundations of the entire country.
She questioned that if the SC rules should not be changed with time. Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that the word ‘law’ in Article 191 gives Parliament the power to legislate. The Supreme Court Rules have a separate section for the definition of words, she said, adding that if the law meant an Act of Parliament, then the lawmakers would have written the same.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that if any law is against the constitution then there are watchdogs. He said the Parliament can repeal the Supreme Court Rules completely if they are against the Constitution and the law.
Faisal Siddiqui Advocate said that law means the act of Parliament. Justice Ijaz ul Hassan said that the law would have meant an Act of Parliament when Article 191 stated that Parliament can make Supreme Court Rules.
The lawyer said that the act cannot be seen as an interference in the internal affairs of the SC. Parliament cannot enact legislation that prevents the Supreme Court from making its own rules, he said.
During the hearing, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBA) also supported the arguments in favour of the act.
The court instructed the attorney general of Pakistan to give arguments tomorrow in the cases and adjourned further hearing.
.jpg)
.jpg)
