Larger SC bench formed to deliberate on suo motu issues

[ghazi52]

Larger SC bench formed to deliberate on suo motu issues

Nasir Iqbal
August 22, 2021

The five-judge Supreme Court bench will be headed by Acting Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and will also consist of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmad and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. — SC website/File

ISLAMABAD: A day after taking notice of the frequent incidents of harassment of journalists, the Supreme Court constituted on Saturday a five-member bench in an attempt to provide clarity on the issue of invoking the jurisdiction of suo motu notice by a bench.

The five-judge bench that will take up the matter on Monday will be headed by Acting Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and will also consist of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmad and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

On Friday a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel had taken up a notice on an application moved by the Press Association of the Supreme Court, which had highlighted frequent incidents of harassment of journalists, and had summoned top officials of three government investigation agencies — the director general of the Federal Investigation Agency, the Inspector General Police of Islamabad, and the interior secretary for Aug 26.

The court had also issued notices to the secretaries of the information & broadcasting, interior, religious affairs and human rights ministries and different media organisations and associations — namely, the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, All Pakistan Newspapers Society, Pakistan Broadcasters Association, and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists — besides the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to state whether the allegations made in the application were correct or otherwise.

Move follows issuance of notices by bench consisting of Justices Isa and Mandokhel

However, on Saturday the apex court proceeded to constitute a larger five-judge bench while noting that the earlier two-judge bench had issued notices to the federal as well as provincial governments, other authorities and the law officers of the federation and provinces and issued directives to fix the matter for Aug 26 before the same bench.

The Supreme Court had constituted the larger bench to provide clarity with regard to the invocation of suo motu jurisdiction, it said.

According to some analysts, the frequent exercise of taking of suo motu notices has always been under observation of premier bars like the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) that have been calling for framing of rules by the Supreme Court for regulating the exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The PBC had also highlighted that in case the matter was fixed on the judicial side, then the Supreme Court should consider constituting a full court consisting of all the 17 judges of the court to deliberate on the matter.

Former Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had expressed his intention of determining the jurisdiction exercised under Article 184(3), to regulate the powers of the court. The court had then taken up a case relating to the scope of Article 184(3) that empowers the top court to initiate suo motu proceedings on matters it considers against the law.

Likewise, former Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had observed that suo motu jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. He had even suggested during a meeting of the full court of the Supreme Court that cases on suo motu notice be taken up by a five-judge larger bench consisting of senior judges of the court and any appeal against the decision on the suo motu notice be heard by a larger bench in which the original judges who decided the matter during the first round should not sit.

The frequent use of suo motu powers during the period when Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was the Chief Justice of Pakistan had raised many eyebrows in the legal fraternity, who repeatedly highlighted the need to determine the limits or constraints of the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, so that the judiciary’s credibility was not eroded, said the analysts.

The lawyers were then of the view that excessive use of Article 184(3) of the Constitution under public interest litigation sometimes sealed the fate of the aggrieved party, especially if an altogether different issue cropped up during collateral proceedings and totally a different aspect was brought to the notice of the court.

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2021

 

[Imran Khan]

useless judicial system of our country . crazy judges no law

 

[khanasifm]

Judiciary corruption needs addressing as well pak judiciary status on global index is one of the lowest

 

[ghazi52]

There is no hope from Judiciary.

 

[ghazi52]

ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), President Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan (SCBAP) and Vice Chairman Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) for legal assistance in journalists’ complaint case.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmad and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard the case and held in abeyance the order of a division bench on an application about journalists’ complaint.

During the course of proceedings, the bench issued notices to the AGP, President SCBA and Vice Chairman PBC for legal assistance in regards to how the suo moto matter should be entertained.

The bench also raised questions on the manner in which suo moto was taken by a division bench, headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa regarding journalists protection.

The bench observed that a division bench issued an order on August 20 against an application which was not pending before the court.

The two-member bench also issued notices to government agencies, federal and provincial advocate generals, it added.

The bench remarked that the order directed that the case be fixed before the same bench on August 26 while the two-member bench, comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Mandokhel, was not available on August 26.

The bench asked whether a special bench should be constituted for this matter. The directives of the August 20 order, would remain in force, it added.

The court directed the respondents to submit replies regarding harassment of journalists.

The bench remarked that the court would not look at the important questions, raised by the journalists at the moment. The real question was about the jurisdiction regarding invocation suo moto notice, it added.

The court directed that the issue of journalists’ complaint would remain ineffective until the new bench was formed.

The court stated that the bench would look into the matter that could anyone other than the Chief Justice take suo moto notice. Generally, there was tradition that a bench other than the Chief Justice, could propose a matter for suo moto notice, it added.

The bench remarked that the court wanted to hear real stakeholders regarding invocation of suo moto notice. Later, hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday.

 

[ghazi52]

SC to determine contours of invoking suo moto powers

Tariq Butt
Wednesday, Aug 25, 2021

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) is going to decide the contours of invoking its suo motu jurisdiction and whether this power can be used by other judges other than the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The tradition has been that any bench can recommend to the chief justice any matter of public importance for invoking his suo moto jurisdiction. But this authority vests only in the top-most judge. The apex court will also provide clarity for bringing into play the suo motu jurisdiction.
The question arose when a two-judge bench comprising Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel recently took suo motu notice on an application filed by five journalists on Aug 20. It pertained to the harassment of two media men by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).

The summons issued by this panel of judges to various government functionaries were held in abeyance by a larger five-member bench led by acting Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial. The panel will also examine the manner in which suo motu action was taken that was not in accordance with the court’s procedure.

Article 184(3), under which the Supreme Court exercises its suo motu jurisdiction, says that if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred is involved, it has the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in this provision.

There has been a long-standing demand of the premier bar bodies, including the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court and high court bar associations, that the suo motu powers should be regulated so that they are not exercised frequently. They also stress that the right of appeal should be given to the aggrieved party before a larger bench.

Some previous civilian governments had planned to amend Article 183(4) to divest the Supreme Court of its suo motu powers, but such proposals were never implemented as governments did not want to annoy the superior judiciary.


Former Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had once remarked that suo motu jurisdiction should be exercised rarely and proposed that suo motu cases should be taken up by a five-judge bench consisting of senior judges and any appeal against the decision could be heard by a larger bench in which the original judges who adjudicated the matter during the first round should not sit.

Going further, the bar associations have recommended more than once that the suo motu notices should be heard by all the judges of the Supreme Court. Their main argument is that the aggrieved party is left with no option but to accept the judgment as it has no other forum available to agitate against it as the Supreme Court remains the first and last judicial platform that hears and decides the case.

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as the chief justice had taken several suo motu notices. So did Mian Saqib Nisar as the top judge of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the incumbent Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Khosa and several other chief justices have not taken too many suo motu notices.

Lawyer Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed has written that when the Supreme Court framed the Supreme Court Rules in 1980, it described, in detail, its various jurisdictions. It even spelt out how its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) (under which suo motu is now justified) should be invoked. But suo motu was not mentioned at all. Seemingly, judges in 1980 did not even realise they had such a jurisdiction, he said.

The lawyer added that even the possibility of tinkering with the composition of benches or the assignment of cases to affect judicial outcomes must be eliminated. Such rules could provide, for example, that any judge (including the chief justice) proposing suo motu notice of a matter must refer the same to a committee of three judges. Suo motu notice would only be taken if recommended by the committee.

However, the proposing judge and members of the committee must recuse themselves from hearing the case; the Supreme Court benches should be constituted by the chief justice together with the next four senior judges for a period of at least six months each. The nature and categories of cases to be fixed before different benches should be specified. Ideally, the assignment of cases to specific benches should only need a computer algorithm working with fixed parameters.

Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed wrote that where a larger bench is needed, it should automatically include the requisite number of judges as per seniority.