Government rejects court’s ruling
In a pre-emptive strike, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that after the bill aimed at clipping the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan received either the president’s assent or it was deemed to have been given, the act that “comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect nor be acted upon in any manner”.
An eight-judge SC bench issued the written order while hearing a set of three petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023.
The proposed law is aimed at depriving the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity.
With the SC’s latest order, the implementation of the law that will subsequently come into effect has been halted.
The detailed order issued said that the contentions raised during the hearing disclosed that there was a “substantial, immediate and direct interference with the independence of the judiciary in the form of multiple intrusions, in the guise of regulating the practice and procedure of this court and conferring upon it a jurisdiction that appears not to be permissible under any constitutional provision”.
“Such intermeddling in the functioning of the court, even on the most tentative assessment, will commence as soon as the bill becomes the act. Accordingly, in our view an interim measure ought to be put in place, in the nature of an anticipatory injunction.
“The making of such an injunction, to prevent imminent apprehended danger that is irreparable, is an appropriate remedy, recognised in our jurisprudence and other jurisdictions that follow the same legal principles and laws.
“It is therefore hereby directed and ordered as follows. The moment that the bill receives the assent of the president or (as the case may be) it is deemed that such assent has been given, then from that very mo ment onwards and till further orders, the act that comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect nor be acted upon in any manner,” it said.
The detailed order said that while the bill is “not yet law it is nonetheless, with exactitude, that what will have the force of law, when the act comes into being,” adding that it could be considered and examined even at this stage.
On the other hand, the ruling coalition government was swift to reject the SC’s ruling. In a joint statement, the government termed the order to be a “clear example of a conflict of interest”.
It said that this was the first time in history that a piece of legislation was being halted by a “controversial and one-sided bench” before it had even been enacted.
The ruling coalition said the judgement was based on a mere “presumption” and this was not just against traditional legal procedure but also logic.
The statement further said the decision was an “offshoot of a one-man show”, which would go down as a “black chapter in the judiciary’s history”.
“The move is in violation of the Constitution and has trampled on the powers of Parliament,” the statement said.
The ruling coalition said that it would devise a strategy to ensure justice in the country so that Pakistan could be steered out of the ongoing crises. “We vow to protect and defend parliament, which is representative of the people, and its constitutional powers,” the government said.
