Bill limiting CJP powers ‘sustained’ with 10-5 majority

SC full bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa reserved the verdict earlier today.

Bill limiting CJP powers ‘sustained’ with 10-5 majority. In a major development, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday “sustained” the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 — which deals with the chief justice’s powers — as “constitutional” with a 10-5 majority.

The full court, comprising all 15 judges of the apex court, had reserved the verdict earlier today on the pleas challenging the law after conducting five marathon hearings.

While reading out the order, CJP Isa noted that five members of the bench — Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Justice Ayesha A Malik, and Justice Shahid Waheed — had opposed the law.

The CJP also mentioned that by a majority of 8-7, sub-section 2 of section 5 of the act, which deals with granting the right of appeal retrospectively, has been declared ‘ultra vires’ or against the Constitution.

What is the law?

The law gives the power of taking sou motu notice to a three-member committee comprising senior judges including the chief justice. It further aimed to have transparent proceedings in the apex court and includes the right to appeal.

Regarding the constitution of benches, the Act stated that every cause, matter, or appeal before the apex court would be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by a committee comprising the CJP and the two senior-most judges.

It added that the decisions of the committee would be taken by a majority.

Regarding exercising the apex court’s original jurisdiction, the Act said that any matter invoking the use of Article 184(3) would first be placed before the committee.

On matters where the interpretation of the Constitution is required, the Act said the committee would compose a bench comprising no less than five apex court judges.

About appeals for any verdict by an apex court bench that exercised Article 184(3)‘s jurisdiction, the Act said that the appeal would lie within 30 days of the bench’s order to a larger SC bench. It added that the appeal would be fixed for hearing within a period not exceeding 14 days.

The Act additionally said that a party would have the right to appoint its counsel of choice for filing a review application under Article 188 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, it states that an application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief, filed in a cause, appeal, or matter, shall be fixed for hearing within 14 days from the date of its filing.

However, the law had the provision that this right of appeal would also extend retrospectively to those aggrieved persons against whom an order was made under Article 184(3) prior to the commencement of the Act, but the court has struck it down.