The ruling Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) alliance and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) on Thursday rejected an eight-member bench constituted to hear petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, furthering the conflict between the judiciary and executive.
In a statement issued mere hours before proceedings began, the coalition government issued a statement describing the eight-member bench as “controversial” and vowing to resist any attempts to dampen parliamentary sovereignty. Describing the taking up of the petitions before the bill has even become law as “unprecedented,” the statement said it was akin to sabotaging the credibility of the apex court and making the constitutional process of justice “meaningless.”
Alleging that the bench itself was “testament to the division” of the Supreme Court, it said the move had validated the ruling coalition’s earlier stated position seeking a full court hearing into constitutional matters. It also stressed that the ruling alliance considered the attempt to strike down a bill before it become law an “attack” on Parliament and its authority.
According to the statement, the constituted bench does not include any of the judges who have raised questions on the powers of the CJP and also lacks the involvement of any judges from Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, betraying the Supreme Court’s role as a symbol of the federation. “Strongly condemning” the move, the statement said that any attempts to snatch the authority of Parliament and interfere in its constitutional domain would be resisted. “No compromise will be made on the authority of Parliament in the light of the Constitution of Pakistan,” the statement stressed.
The ruling parties noted that Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial’s taking up of the petitions—all filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)—at this time reflected the “will and intent” of the court and also gave hints as to its eventual ruling. Referring to earlier orders of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Aminuddin Khan, the statement said they had objected to the “one man show” of the CJP, as well as biased and dictatorial behavior and the formation of special benches. “With the formation of the eight-member controversial bench, the facts stated in the judgments of these honorable judges have become more clear,” it said. “The constitution of the controversial bench in haste and fixing the bill for hearing, apart from the will and intent, also clearly expresses the decision to come which is sad and tantamount to murder of justice,” it added.
Wait for law
Shortly after the statement was issued, representatives of the ruling alliance addressed a press conference, with Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar maintaining that it was right of any citizen to challenge any legislation once it became law. However, he said, it was “alarming” that the “premature” petitions against the bill were being heard by a “selective” bench. Lamenting that the bench primarily included junior judges, he claimed it had been constituted on a “pick and choose” basis. He also pointed out the conflict of interest in the CJP leading the bench when the bill in question sought to curtail his powers.
Hoping that the bench would be dissolved today and the case taken up again, if necessary, once the bill had become law, he noted that all bar councils had unanimously rejected the constitution of this bench. “The Pakistan Bar Council, Sindh Bar Council, Balochistan Bar Council, Punjab Bar Council, Islamabad Capital Territory Bar Council and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council boycotted the eight-member bench constituted to hear the pleas against the premature bill,” he said, adding that perceptions of a rift between Parliament and the judiciary were triggered by actions of the court.
“The Parliament has the right, as per the law and Constitution, to legislate for the interest of the people and to make the institutions strong,” he said, adding that all parties in the ruling coalition were united in saying pleas against the bill should only be taken up once it had become law. He regretted that institutions were interfering with Parliament’s right to make laws. He also tendered an apology to the nation for voting to elevate two junior judges to the Supreme Court last year.
Adviser to the P.M. on Kashmir Affairs Qamar Zaman Kaira of the Pakistan Peoples Party, also questioned how the court could take up pleas against a bill that was still with Parliament. “Do you want to prevent Parliament from using its authority? We will not accept it and not compromise on it,” he said, adding that none of the parties in the ruling coalition agreed with how the bench had been formed.
Warning that rifts between institutions were leading the country towards a bad situation, he added: “We only want the benches to be constituted in a balanced and proper manner.”
A joint session of Parliament on Monday passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, aiming to curtail the unfettered suo motu powers of the CJP by making it incumbent on him to sit in a committee with two senior-most judges prior to exercising the jurisdiction of suo motu. The bill has already been returned by President Arif Alvi once and would de facto become law next week if he does not grant his assent within 10 days.
On Wednesday, the CJP formed an eight-member bench led by him and comprising Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ayesha Malik, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Shahid Waheed to take up petitions against it. In a seeming hint to the court’s stance, the cause list has described the case as “setting aside the” bill.