Pakistan Supreme Court questions government’s motives in a plea for full court on judicial reforms bill.

8 May On Monday, a larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, comprising eight members, grilled the Attorney General of Pakistan, Mansoor Usman Awan, over the government’s request to form a full court to hear a set of petitions against a law aimed at limiting the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The bench included Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and seven other justices. At the last hearing on May 2, the Chief Justice had asked for copies of the National Assembly proceedings when the bill was deliberated upon by the House. The bench had directed the Attorney General to furnish copies of the proceedings of the standing committee and the House to understand the lawmakers’ concerns and views while passing the bill. The Pakistan Bar Council had also requested a full court, which was put aside until the next hearing. The government requested the Supreme Court to form a full court to consider important questions regarding the judiciary’s independence and parliament’s powers to regulate the court’s procedure, as well as to dismiss the challenges to the law. The PML-N also submitted a plea requesting the formation of a full court to hear the case before today’s hearing.

A petition has been filed for the formation of a full court to hear the case against the government. AGP Awan informed the court that the PML-N had also filed a petition for the formation of a full court. Justice Ahsan noted that the government’s plea had not yet been fixed for hearing and inquired whether the documents sought by the court at the previous hearing had been submitted. Awan replied that he expected to receive the record of parliamentary proceedings by the next day and had also contacted the NA speaker in this regard.

Today’s hearing

At the outset of today’s hearing, “The judiciary’s independence is a fundamental element of the Constitution,” the AGP added. He said that the law in question had set out the procedure for constituting benches as well as dealing with appeals. “The matters decided in the law are administrative in nature,” he said, arguing that the SC’s rules were formulated by a full court. He said that decisions and cases concerning the judiciary’s independence and rules should involve a full court, adding that the law would also be applicable on judges that were not hearing the case.

Justice Ahsan, however, said that the matter at hand concerned the power to legislate and not changes to the SC rules. “Various benches have been routinely hearing cases relating to legislative powers,” he said. Justice Malik questioned whether the government wanted to avail the “advantage” of a full court and also asked whether the government wanted the top court’s internal discussions to come out in the open.

The AGP contended that a full court had not heard every case related to the judiciary’s independence but highlighted that several cases, including the Iftikhar Chaudhry case, were heard by a full court.

Justice Ahsan then observed that under the new law, a five-member bench would hear cases concerning the Constitution’s interpretation. The AGP stated that the top court had barred the government from implementing the law.

“Parliament says there should be a five-member bench [whereas] the attorney general says there should be a full court. It seems that the government’s [ability to] count has weakened,” Justice Akhtar remarked.

The CJP observed that the case at hand did not concern a constitutional amendment. However, AGP Awan said that the court’s decisions were meant for the future. “Perhaps after 20 years, the ground realities and the Constitution may be different,” he said as he wrapped up his arguments for the formation of a full court to hear the case.

Justice Akhtar then said that the law made by Parliament talked about a five-member bench hearing the case. “How can the PML-N file a plea for the petition of a full court?” he asked.

The court then directed the AGP to submit the parliamentary proceedings’ record by tomorrow and adjourned the hearing for three weeks.

In a recent hearing, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party’s Fawad Chaudhry accused the government of constantly changing its position regarding an ongoing case. Chaudhry made these statements to reporters outside the apex court after attending the hearing.

Chaudhry criticized the government’s inconsistency, stating that their position in Parliament and the media differed from the one they presented before the Supreme Court. He specifically referenced media reports from earlier in the day that suggested the government had refused to provide records of parliamentary proceedings. However, the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) told the court that the record would be provided by the following day.

Chaudhry went on to say that he believed the government should take a consistent position in accordance with the law and Constitution. He urged them to pick one stance and stick to it.

This development adds further fuel to an already contentious issue. The constant switching of positions by the government is likely to exacerbate tensions between political parties and heighten concerns amongst the public about the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability. As the situation develops, it remains to be seen how the government will respond and what implications it will have for the ongoing case.

PML-N file a plea for the petition of a full court

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court requesting the formation of a full court bench to hear the petitions against a law aimed at limiting the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). According to a copy of the plea obtained by Dawn.com, the party has urged the apex court to constitute a full court as the case is of great constitutional importance, with issues of first impression involved.

The petition pointed out that the legislative right and domain exercised by the elected representatives of the people was on one side, while the need to protect the independence of the judiciary lay on the other. It noted that Articles 175(2) and 191 of the Constitution, which deal with the establishment and jurisdiction of courts and rules of procedure, respectively, and Entry 55 of the Federal Legislative List, were “yet to be judicially interpreted in this context.”

Furthermore, the plea argued that since it was the first time in the history of Pakistan that an act of Parliament had been restrained through an interim order from coming into effect, the “collective wisdom of all the judges of this court is necessary.” The petition also argued that it would not be appropriate for the matter to be heard by an eight-member bench, which was both selected and headed by the CJP, as the act involved devolving and sharing the discretionary powers of the CJP himself.

The PML-N’s move comes amid a heated debate over the law aimed at curbing the CJP’s powers, which was passed by the National Assembly in March. The opposition parties have been calling for the law’s repeal, while the government has defended it as necessary for the efficient functioning of the judiciary. The case is expected to be heard in the coming days, and the formation of a full court bench will depend on the decision of the Supreme Court.