SC likely to pronounce judgment on Practice and Procedure Act today

Islamabad: The hearing on the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act has started Wednesday.

According to details, the full court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa is hearing the case. The hearing of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act is being telecasted live. The Attorney General along with Pakistan Bar Council began arguments today.

Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan started the arguments, then the Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked that you are the ‘last but not the least’.

The Attorney General said: “I have argued that the case is admissible, three questions were raised which I will answer, I will talk about Article 191 and the independence of the judiciary. I will give arguments on the question of Parliament being the master of the roster, I will give arguments on the right of appeal being given and I will also give arguments on the question of appeal against the decision of the full court”.

Mansoor Usman added that the fundamental rights listed in Articles 14, 20, 22 and 28 are enforced according to law. Right to privacy is regulated by law. Article 191 gives Parliament the power to legislate.

The Chief Justice said, ‘Are you saying that the word law in Article 191 is different from the use of this word in the rest of the constitutional clauses’?

Attorney General of Pakistan said that the power to legislate in the High Treason Act and the Right to Information Act was taken from the constitutional provisions. In these laws, Parliament did not rely on the Federal Legislative List. No amendment has been made to Article 191 since the constitution was made. The non-amendment of Article 191 is to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said: “According to the 1956 constitution, the rules were approved by the President or the Governor General. According to you, Parliament is allowed to change the rules. If your argument is to be accepted, then why the Parliament did not approve the Supreme Court Rules earlier”?

Attorney General Usman Anwar said that exercise of power cannot be considered as the end of Parliament's power. Parliament's failure to amend Article 191 does not mean surrendering its power. Article 191 contains the word law under which the Practice and Procedure Law is made.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the independence of the judiciary has been affected by the Practice and Procedure Law. If the word "law" is used 200 times in the constitution, will it have the same meaning? On which Usman Anwar said that the law is either made by parliament or judge made law.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar added that according to Article, there cannot be such legislation that takes away fundamental rights. To which the Attorney General said that under Article 191, Parliament has the power to legislate, Parliament cannot legislate against the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan further said that the real question is the independence of the judiciary, while Justice Jamal Mandukhel inquired whether this act is reducing or increasing the independence of the judiciary.

AGP Mansoor Usman said: “I will answer these questions in arguments on the principle of separation of powers, independence of the judiciary. Practice and procedure is not against the independence of the judiciary”.

Justice Athar Minullah remarked, Mr. Attorney General, these words are not only ‘law,’ but ‘subject to law,’ while Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that Article 191 and the rest of the articles you are referring to are different. The articles you are referring to are about fundamental rights. In Article 192, Law means Act of Parliament which comes from Entry 58, why Provincial Assembly cannot make this legislation? There are problems with these cases, one size fits all does not work here.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that why don't they say that the constitution makers have deliberately used the word parliament or law. The constitution makers have made the constitution as a living book that can be used when needed.

While Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said: “Why the word law was used in Article 191, also shed light on it”. The Attorney General said that in Article 191, the law will be considered to mean Act of Parliament.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that the Act of Parliament can also be of the Provincial Assembly, can the provinces legislate for their High Court? While Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the constitution makers could have also said that Supreme Court should make its own rules until any legislation is made. It is not clear from the intention of the constitution makers that the Supreme Court rules can be changed by legislation.

Justice Muneebt Akhtar asked if Supreme Court Rules 1980 are law. On which the Attorney General said that the words written in Article 191 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 do not come in the law.

Qazi Faez Isa asked where it is written in the constitution that court decisions will also be law and it is necessary to obey and implement court decisions. While Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan inquired whether the rules of the executive and parliament are laws? If these are laws, why are the Supreme Court Rules not included in the law?

Justice Yahya Afridi said: “You are trying to say that Supreme Court Rules 1980 are law but the words mentioned in Article 191 do not come within the law”. While Justice Muneeb Akhtar while talking to Usman Mansoor said, Attorney General Sir, you are talking unusual thing. You should understand my argument first, to which the Attorney General replied, I understand what you said, but still say it.

The Attorney General said that the rules of the Executive and the Parliament have the status of law. The rules are law but the word used in Article 191 will not be called law.

Chief Justice of Pakistan said that you had started the discussion on a different basis, if you had continued with your arguments, this problem would not have arisen. It is difficult to answer yes or no to some questions.

Justice Ayesha Malik asked, according to you, rules are generally law, so on what principle will the court interpret the word law? While Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the rules of 1956 were made according to which provision of the constitution? Justice Mazahar Naqvi asked if the last rules of the Supreme Court were made in 1980, does that mean the Parliament was sleeping for 43 years.

Justice Mazahar Naqvi asked, have you brought the records of the Parliament? Was this act debated or not? On which the Attorney General said that the record of Parliament is available on its website.

Justice Yahya Afridi added that Parliament's problem in the Act was to create a mechanism related to automatic notice or Article 184 III. The Parliament made a committee of judges for all kinds of cases out of the act itself. It was not right for Parliament to up and down everything at once. There should also be a mechanism for exercising the powers of Parliament. If the mistakes are in the Supreme Court, so in the Parliament also and they would have fixed the problem.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan gave arguments that Parliament is not our enemy, people have rights. We often forget that the world runs together, why we look at each other's institutions with negative thinking, live and let live. The principle will have to be adopted.

Justice Qazi Faez said: “Attorney General, the law is wrong, it is for the petitioners to prove, you tell me if the law is in accordance with the constitution or not”?

He continued to say that Parliament could have taken a step if it wanted. But it trusted the court to decide how we should conduct our affairs. Parliament respected the Supreme Court with this law, we are pointing issues in the constitutional institution Parliament.

Qazi Faez further said that in the recent past, the Supreme Court did not extend the hearing authority but created it, can we as the Supreme Court do what it did not have the authority to do.

Yesterday Mutahidda Qoumi Movement (MQM) lawyer Faisal Siddiqui and Vice Chairman Pakistan Bar completed arguments in favor of the Act. MQM lawyer Faisal Siddiqui pleaded for dismissal of the pleas against the Act in the previous hearing.

The verdict in the Practice and Procedure Act case is likely to be delivered today. The full court bench of the Supreme Court has so far heard four, and the larger bench has conducted five hearings of the case. Earlier on April 13, the larger bench had ordered the ban on the law in the first hearing.

Under the Act, the power to issue automatic notices, and to constitute a bench has been given to a committee of three senior judges, to appoint cases for hearing and to receive applications.

The aggrieved party has been given the right to appeal within one month and right to change the counsel. While the right to appeal against past decisions in automatic notice cases has also been given.