The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which seeks to strip the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) of the power to take Suo motu notices individually. The bill was introduced by Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar.
Addressing the Law Minister, PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari called the initiative “too little too late” and said it should be called the “Judiciary Empowerment” bill.
Speaking, Tarar said, “It is being said that there should be a constitutional amendment. I want them to know that there is no need for constitutional changes.
“They should go and read Article 191 of the Constitution, which gives the Assembly the power to make laws. The Supreme Court has also been creating its rules since 1980 according to the Constitution and the law, and it is also written in the preamble.
He said Pakistan has six bar councils and “all of them have saluted the House and the bill for bringing the bill”.
North Waziristan MNA Mohsin Dawar introduced the amendments which were accepted.
Tarar also acknowledged Bilawal’s “too little, too late” remarks, but said he believed “there is a right time for everything” and the government had shown restraint “until the voice came from within the courts”.
Shortly after the bill was approved, the session was adjourned.
Earlier in the day, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice approved the cabinet’s proposed amendments.
Standing committee panel hearing
The bill – titled the “Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023” – cleared the panel with several additional amendments. The panel session was chaired by PML-N MNA Bashir Mehmood Virk.
Other modifications included the right to appeal against Suo motu verdicts taken within 30 days before the passage of the Advocates Protection Act along with the addition that no case involving the interpretation of the Constitution would have a bench of fewer than five judges.
Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, Minister of State for Law and Justice Shahadat Awan, PML-N’s Mohsin Ranjha, and MNA Ramesh Kumar Vankwani were also among the participants in today’s meeting.
He said Pakistan has six bar councils and “all of them have saluted the House and the bill for bringing the bill”.
North Waziristan MNA Mohsin Dawar introduced the amendments which were accepted.
Tarar also acknowledged Bilawal’s “too little, too late” remarks, but said he believed “there is a right time for everything” and the government had shown restraint “until the voice came from within the courts”.
The Law Minister thanked members of the NA Standing Committee on Law and Justice for their input on the Bill. “This bill has been an old demand of the Bar, which said that the indiscriminate use of 184(3) should be stopped,” he added.
Tarar said the law aims to make the Supreme Court proceedings more transparent and also includes the right of appeal.
He said all institutions must abide by laws passed by Parliament. The minister cited Article 191 of the Constitution, which states that “in accordance with the Constitution and the law, the Supreme Court may lay down rules governing the practice and procedure of the court”.
Leader of the Opposition Raja Riaz appreciated the government’s efforts in implementing the law and said it would ensure the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
Speaking, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif insisted that Parliament was not usurping the powers of the Supreme Court, but rather legislating under its constitutional right.
Minister of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony Mufti Abdul Shakoor said Parliament is a sovereign institution and its members have the right to legislate as they are the people’s representatives.
Shortly after the bill was approved, the session was adjourned.
Earlier in the day, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice approved the cabinet’s proposed amendments.
Standing committee panel hearing
The bill titled the “Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023” – cleared the panel with several additional amendments. The panel session was chaired by PML-N MNA Bashir Mehmood Virk.
Other modifications included the right to appeal against suo motu verdicts taken within 30 days before the passage of the Advocates Protection Act along with the addition that no case involving the interpretation of the Constitution would have a bench of fewer than five judges.
In today’s meeting, Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, Minister of State for Law and Justice Shahadat Awan, PML-N’s Mohsin Ranjha, and MNA Ramesh Kumar Vankwani were also among the participants.
Tarar laments the “unwise use” of the suo-motu power
In the opening remarks of the meeting, Tarar lamented, “In the last year, two senior judges of the Supreme Court have not been seen [included] in any important bench.” This shouldn’t happen.”
Tarar said the suo motu authority was being used as a “one-man show”, clarifying: “We have seen from all angles that there is no need for a constitutional amendment for this.”
He further said, “Unfortunately, there has not been a full court session of the Supreme Court for the last three years. It is the responsibility of the federal government to fill the vacuum through legislation.”
He said The minister added that the government did not want to make such a law that could be challenged later. “It was an old demand from stakeholders that the legislation is now being passed.
Tarar argued, “Not having the right to appeal against a suo motu decision is against fundamental rights. It is also everyone’s right to obtain the services of a lawyer of their choice.”
He defended the government’s move by saying that when “voices from the Supreme Court were also heard, a decision was taken on the legislation”.
Virk, chairman of the standing committee, then asked, “Is there anything in this bill that is against the constitution?”
To this, PPP MNA Syeda Nafeesa Shah replied, “Members of Parliament are unanimous, but there are voices from outside. There is an objection to the timing of the legislation. Some people say that Article 184, paragraph 3 [of the Constitution] will have to be changed.”
Tarar elaborates on the use of suo motu powers: “Article 184(3) has been applied recklessly. [Former CJP] Iftikhar Chaudhry used the suo motu [capacity] notice recklessly.
“After Iftikhar Chaudhry, the three chief justices [of Pakistan] did not exercise this power. Even though [former CJP] Mian Saqib Nisar crossed the limits.”
At one point during the session, PTI’s Vankwani said there was a perception that the government was “bulldozing matters” by passing the bill.
He suggested that it would be better to “involve the Supreme Court in the process”, to which Tarar replied that the Supreme Court “has done nothing in this matter for so many years”.
Responding to Vankwani’s suggestion that the high court comment on the matter, PML-N’s Virk replied, “Should permission be sought from the cause of the illness?”
Ranjha then said, “Legislation is the duty of Parliament [while] the duty of the judiciary is to interpret the law and the constitution.
He said, Parliament should do its job and the Supreme Court should do its own,
Ranjha further said that “nothing is done where we cross the line”. PPP’s Qamar then said, “If the intention is not good, then the right to appeal [suo motu notice] can be sabotaged.”
The Law Minister then proposed changing the right to hear appeals against a suo motu challenge to five judges instead of three.
At one point during the session, Ranjha demanded that the act be done retrospectively, after which PPP MNA Syed Naveed Qamar remarked, “Don’t ask for this. There will be allegations that this legislation is being passed to provide assistance to Nawaz Sharif.
Subsequently, an amendment to appeal against suo motu verdicts taken within 30 days before the adoption of the Lawyers’ Protection Act was included in the bill, along with an amendment that no case on the interpretation of the Constitution would have a panel of fewer than five judges.
The amendment bill was then approved by the standing committee, after which Tarar said the Supreme Court Bar was of the opinion that Article 184(3) of the Constitution should also be amended.
