What's new

PDM is trying to limit powers of Chief Justice !

It is getting Hilarious.
They are literally cracking up the state.
Ammending Laws with half parliament , 2 provincial assemblies missing jist to stop elections.
They dont have idea what it means "State loses credibilitt"
 
.
,.,..

Cabinet approves bill aimed at curbing CJP’s powers to take suo motu notice, constitute benches

Sanaullah Khan
March 28, 2023

A bill aimed at curtailing the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) powers to take suo motu notices and constituting benches of the Supreme Court was presented in the National Assembly after being approved by the federal cabinet on Tuesday.

The cabinet summary, available with Dawn.com, for the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, said the exercise of original jurisdiction by the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was a “subject of discussion by various forums”.

A day ago, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court (SC) had called for revisiting the power of the “one-man show” enjoyed by the chief justice, saying that the country’s top court could not “be dependent on the solitary decision of one man”.

The two had made the remarks in a detailed dissenting note — released on Monday hours after the SC took up the PTI’s plea challenging the postponement of elections in Punjab — for the top court’s March 1 verdict regarding holding elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the two provincial assemblies have been dissolved.

The two judges said the suo motu proceedings regarding the provincial elections stood dismissed by a majority of 4-3 and contended that the CJP did not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the respective judges.

Earlier today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif hailed the dissenting note as a “ray of hope” during his National Assembly speech and called for relevant legislation in its wake.

Regarding the constitution of benches, the bill passed by the cabinet today states 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 bill said that any matter invoking the use of Article 184(3) would first be placed before the abovementioned committee.

“If the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the committee, for adjudication of the matter,” the bill reads.

On appealing any verdict by an apex court bench which exercised Article 184(3)‘s jurisdiction, the bill said that the appeal will 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 bill also proposed changes to other aspects of the law.

It 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, “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.”

The bill said that its provisions would have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules or regulations for the time being in force or judgement of any court, including the SC and high courts.

PTI Secretary General Asad Umar termed the development an “attack on the SC’s independence”.

PTI Senior Vice President Fawad Chaudhry rejected the amendments, saying that only an “elected parliament” had the right to do so after a detailed debate.

Bill presented in NA​

The bill was later presented in the National Assembly by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, who said the use of Article 184(3) in the country’s judicial history had garnered a lot of criticism, particularly from bar associations.

“There were also periods when the Supreme Court took three to four suo motu notices in a day on administrative matters. If you look at history then many important national assets were denationalised and privatised … but all those matters were reversed by Article 184(3) proceedings, the results of which are before us.”

He said that suo motu notices were taken on trivial issues which “did nothing to add to the Supreme Court’s sanctity” and remained subjects of discussion.

Tarar said some former CJPs had used their rights in a way that “harmed the institution’s sanctity and violated the trichotomy of powers … because of which fingers were pointed at the court’s status and sanctity”.

He said there was a “consistent demand” for parliament to deliberate on how benches should be constituted, how Article 184(3)’s jurisdiction should be exercised and the right of appeal in suo motu cases.

Tarar said yesterday’s dissenting note had “unleashed a wave of concern … that due to this division in the institution and this power which has been given to an individual, there is some kind of harm” to the apex court.

He said the law ministry proposed the bill, which the federal cabinet deliberated upon and unanimously approved.

Subsequently, NA Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf referred to the bill to the law and justice committee.

Resolution adopted against judiciary’s ‘unreasonable interference in political matters’​

Meanwhile, Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb presented a resolution, which stated that the House deemed the judiciary’s “unreasonable interference in political matters the cause of political instability”.

It said that the House supported the stance of the four dissenting judges in the apex court’s March 1 order regarding KP and Punjab polls and demanded its implementation, along with the expectation that the higher judiciary would refrain from interfering in political and administrative matters.

The resolution said that the Election Commission of Pakistan was an independent institution which was obligated to hold fair and free elections and its constitutional role should not be interfered in.

The resolution said that the elections for all assemblies should take place at the same time under caretaker governments to ensure “actual political stability”.

Lastly, it said that matters requiring collective wisdom and in which calls for such are made, should be listened to by a full court bench of the Supreme Court.

The resolution was subsequently adopted by the National Assembly.
 
.
Thing is, judges are themselves trying to play into this, and I have no doubt with malafide intentions.

One other thing to note, the judge who wrote the order (Mandokhel) yesterday in the hearing itself told the AG that this is their internal matter (the 4-3 issue) and to let the SC handle it, AG should only discuss the merits of the case at hand.

Jab pallay kuch na ho to isi tarah oliyan boliyan marni parti hain.
Notice how he didn't say it clearcut that the whole 4-3 thing is BS. He said it's their internal matter. (which may come out) He left the door open for the future.
 
.
,.,..,

Govt tables bill in NA to limit CJP’s suo motu powers​

The bill states that a committee of three senior-most SC judges will decide on taking up any suo motu case

Khalid Mehmood/Hasnaat Maik
March 28, 2023

The federal government tabled a legislative bill in the Natonal Assembly on Tuesday seeking to curtail the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, leaving the decision of taking up any suo motu case to the three senior-most judges of the apex court.

Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar presented 'The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023', which was approved by the federal cabinet earlier in the evening. NA Speaker Raja Pervez Ashraf subsequently referred the tabled bill to the NA's Standing Committee on Law and Justice for its approval.

Sources told The Express Tribune that a meeting of the standing committee has been summoned for Wednesday (tomorrow) at 10pm to take up the matter. The committee is expected to swiftly approve the judicial reforms bill, after which the it will be sent back to Parliament.

Seeking to curtail the discretionary powers of the chief justice, the judicial reforms bill states that "every cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by the Committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior most judges, in order of seniority,"

The decisions of such a committee shall be by majority, it adds.

Regarding suo moto powers, the bill seeks to ensure that any matter invoking exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) shall be first placed before the committee of three senior-most judges.

“..If the Committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the Committee, for adjudication of the matter,” it adds.

The legislation also allows appeals within 30 days of a verdict being issued on a suo motu case and enforces that a bench be constituted to hear such an appeal within 14 days.

“An appeal shall lie within thirty days from a final order of a bench of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution to a larger bench of the Supreme Court and such appeal shall, for hearing, be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days,” read the draft.

The development comes amid a growing debate in the country over the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute benches, 'fix' cases, and initiate public interest proceedings under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged the National Assembly to legislate on reducing the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, stating that the voices from within the judiciary were a 'new ray of hope'. The premier said that history would not forgive the National Assembly if it did not pass the legislation.

Addressing the NA session, the prime minister read out a dissenting order issued by Supreme Court judges Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on a suo motu case over the delay of elections to the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa assemblies.

On Monday, the two dissenting judges of the apex court had issued a 27-page order, stating that the suo motu case regarding the Punjab and K-P elections date announcement had been dismissed by a majority of four judges out of seven.

The 27-page 'order of the court' by the two dissenting judges was in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's earlier order which had ruled in a 3-2 verdict that polls in K-P and Punjab be held within 90 days.

In the order, the judges also called for "revisiting the power of the one-man show enjoyed by the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan” in order to “strengthen” the institution and “ensure public trust and confidence” in the apex court.

So when it benefits the rulers, they will in no time pass legislations but for the benefit of the people they will never do it. Why not make major reforms in judiciary, open it 24 7 but sort out the 50,000 pending cases and appeals. Give justice to the people, make high court in every city so the people can get justice closer to home.
 
.
Notice how he didn't say it clearcut that the whole 4-3 thing is BS. He said it's their internal matter. (which may come out) He left the door open for the future.

I honestly am baffled how a SC judge wrote that. So are all the laywers I see on media.

The judge himself signed off on an order which explicitly said 'reconstitution' of the bench.

Then the judge gave reference of the Panama case, but in that case the bench was not reconstituted. The 2 judges said they have made up their mind because of the arguments, and the 3 remaining said they want a JIT to further make up their mind. No reconstitution at all. To how can Mansoor Shah say that both cases are the same?
 
.
Ironically, this may help PTI and Pakistan in the long run. Judicial activism in Pakistan was destructive, even managing private enterprise like hospitals, blocking privatization of PSM, etc. The judiciary was untouchable, you couldn't even question judgements without being slapped with contempt of court charges. Judiciary needs to be cut down to size.
I never understood this supreme court system that seems to take cases without an appeal from lower courts. U.S. Supreme court does not interfere in most appeals court decisions granting certiorari (i.e. the right to appeal) to only a few cases. My guess is, the Executive branch is weak and hence the Judiciary has usurped the Executive's day to day functions. Just like the military has encroached on the civilian turf due to weak polity.
 
.
also require approval of president

what will happen if cheif justice go on strike alone with all court and lawyers
 
. .
34.png


Website is fully functional so is the Supreme court
1680028879036.png
 
Last edited:
.
.,.,.

Opinion split in legal fraternity after bill clipping CJP’s powers tabled in NA


Asad Rahim calls the proposed amendments "clownish", whereas Salahuddin Ahmed deems them “excellent and much needed”.

Dawn.com
March 28, 2023

After a bill aimed at curtailing the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) powers to take suo motu notices and constituting benches of the Supreme Court (SC) was approved by the federal cabinet and presented in the National Assembly on Tuesday, the opinion in the legal fraternity was split.

The cabinet summary for the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, states 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,” adding that “the decisions of the committee would be taken by a majority.”

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

“If the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved, it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which may also include the members of the committee, for adjudication of the matter,” the bill reads.

Here is what the legal eagles had to say about the bill’s proposed amendments to curtail the top court’s powers.

Asad Rahim​

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan told Dawn.com that the government’s legislation was a “clownish attempt — in the same vein as Israel’s Netanyahu — to declaw the one institution standing in the way of the Constitution’s violation”.

“It can’t be done through ordinary legislation, and it attacks both the independence of the judiciary as well as the principle of trichotomy of powers,” he said.

Salahuddin Ahmed​

Terming the amendments as “excellent and much-needed”, Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed said the proposed changes were in line with what all the bar associations had been demanding.

Ahmed said the bill was in line with the suggestions of the bars regarding the CJP’s “absolute discretion to constitute benches for well over a decade now”.

“In fact, even CJP Asif Khosa had proposed regulating the power of suo motu along similar lines but unfortunately the Supreme Court did not frame rules in this regard,” he said. “As a result, the Parliament has had to act in the exercise of its law-making powers under Article 191 of the Constitution.”

Ahmed said the right of one appeal against decisions made by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) is also a long-standing demand of bars.
“Another excellent part of the bill is the stipulation that urgent matters will be fixed for hearing within two weeks. Presently, urgent applications can remain pending before CJ for months at end,” he added.

Abdul Moiz Jaferii​

Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said the proposed act sought to override the relevant chapter of the Supreme Court rules which have been in place since 1980 and termed it a “great solution to suo motu engineering and unilateral bench fixing by the CJP that should have come from the court itself.”

“Article 191 of the constitution makes very it clear that the Supreme Court can make rules regulating the practice and procedures of the court, but this power is subject to the constitution and the law.”

He added that an ordinary piece of legislation can effectively fill the void which exists in the rules and better structure the discretion that vests in the chief justice with regard to the formation of benches and the fixation of cases before them as well as the right of appeal for suo moto decisions.

Muhammad Ahmad Pansota​

Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota said that while he supported the reform, the manner in which it was being conducted was “improper and violative” of the Constitution.

“I am all for reform in the power of the CJP to take suo motu action. It must be structured, however, the process being adopted by the government in curtailing the suo motu power through subordinate legislation is improper and violative of Articles 238/239 of the Constitution,” he said.

Hassan Niazi​

Lawyer Hassan Niazi disagreed with Barrister Pansota’s take, saying the apex court’s power was being “structured instead of curtailed”.
“The amendment does not appear to take away the SC’s original jurisdiction, it merely describes how it will be exercised. That doesn’t require a constitutional amendment,” he said.

He said the parliament was “well within its rights” to regulate how the CJP’s powers are to be exercised, adding that it was a “longstanding” demand which should be welcomed.

Salaar Khan​

Lawyer and columnist Salaar Khan said that while regulating the apex court’s procedure did not necessarily require a constitutional amendment, it was possible that any law passed would be struck down by the Supreme Court for “violating the promised independence of the judiciary” since laws were still subject to the Constitution

“One can even imagine the SC will consider such a law, or laws, within the present context (the government’s design to delay elections, in violation of the Constitution).
As such, the SC may even fashion a way to bring that to the fore,” he explained.

He recalled that there were many calls for reforms over the years, including from within the apex court and “this is not the first time this issue has been raised.”

He also pointed out that the issue of the provincial elections could not be separated from the entire matter

Basil Nabi Malik​

Advocate Basil Malik said Article 191 of the Constitution allowed the appropriate legislature to regulate practices and procedure of the Supreme Court.

“As such, certain subject matters of the bill, such as regulating bench fixing and exercise of suo motu powers, appear to be within its competence via a simple majority,” he said.

“However, considering that the Constitution already delineates the Supreme Court’s appellate powers, it is arguable as to whether the parliament, through a simple majority, can carve out a fresh appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court against an order of that very Supreme Court.”
 
.
They cannot amend the constitution unless two-thirds of the membership of both houses vote in favor of the amendment bill separately. So, they are instead amending the rules that regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court. But again whether or not the parliament/legislature has that authority is debatable as such an action would be in apparent contradiction with the article 191 of the constitution
With the blessing of you know who, the biggest player in Pakistani politics yet claims it doesn't play a part, no force can stop PDM from going any distance to screw up the nation.
 
.
مجھے کوئی افسوس نہیں ہے ان ججوں کے ساتھ جو ہو رہا ہے وہ ہونا ہی تھا ۔ انہی ججوں نے اس رات قاسم سوری کی رولنگ ریورس کی تھی راتوں کو عدالتیں کھولی تھیں اور باجوے کا لکھا فیصلہ سنایا تھا ۔ اب کیا ہو سکتا ہے ۔ انہی ججوں کی عنایت سے ملک کی یہ حالت ہے ۔
 
.
I honestly am baffled how a SC judge wrote that. So are all the laywers I see on media.

The judge himself signed off on an order which explicitly said 'reconstitution' of the bench.

Then the judge gave reference of the Panama case, but in that case the bench was not reconstituted. The 2 judges said they have made up their mind because of the arguments, and the 3 remaining said they want a JIT to further make up their mind. No reconstitution at all. To how can Mansoor Shah say that both cases are the same?
Machiavellian politics and rationality do not mix well.

One good thing is that the judges are all now standing naked. At least the major players. I shudder to imagine what will happen with Fraud Esa takes over chief mantle.
 
.
I honestly am baffled how a SC judge wrote that. So are all the laywers I see on media.

The judge himself signed off on an order which explicitly said 'reconstitution' of the bench.

Then the judge gave reference of the Panama case, but in that case the bench was not reconstituted. The 2 judges said they have made up their mind because of the arguments, and the 3 remaining said they want a JIT to further make up their mind. No reconstitution at all. To how can Mansoor Shah say that both cases are the same?

In a way, it's a slap to the judges, and the only sad part is that it took a pack of criminals to remind them of their aukat.
 
.
Thing is, judges are themselves trying to play into this, and I have no doubt with malafide intentions.

One other thing to note, the judge who wrote the order (Mandokhel) yesterday in the hearing itself told the AG that this is their internal matter (the 4-3 issue) and to let the SC handle it, AG should only discuss the merits of the case at hand.

Jab pallay kuch na ho to isi tarah oliyan boliyan marni parti hain.
If i m not mistaken the change they are making it will for the future cases not on current 1 which is already in SC
 
.
Back
Top Bottom