ISLAMABAD- The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday declared the Supreme Court [Practice and Procedure] Act, 2023, as lawful. The top court ruled the subject matter with the ratio of ten to five judges. Only five judges wrote dissenting note.
The case is important as it would significantly impact the country’s judicial processes.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa announced the verdict reserved earlier after conclusion of the arguments of the parties concerned.
During the previous hearing on the Practice and Procedure Act, Faisal Siddiqui, the lawyer representing the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), and the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, presented compelling arguments against the Act. Siddiqui, representing MQM, had called for the dismissal of the petitions against the Act.
Today’s hearing commenced with the Attorney General presenting his arguments. He indicated that he would provide evidence based on written responses, clarifying that there would be no repetition of arguments. The Attorney General emphasized the discretionary power vested in the Registrar and urged that the Attorney General’s role should not be undermined.
He also touched upon Articles 191 and judicial freedom, but the Chief Justice questioned whether he was implying that the term “law” in Article 191 carried a different meaning in constitutional sections. The Attorney General clarified that it was not his intention and reaffirmed that the term “law” bore the same meaning throughout all sections.
The Attorney General elaborated on substantial treason and the Right to Information Act as sources of legislative power. He argued that Article 191 granted Parliament the authority to legislate and that no constitutional section deprived Parliament of this power.
In response to queries from the bench, the Attorney General discussed the inclusion of the Practice and Procedure Act within the scope of Article 191 and its applicability to various domains. He affirmed that the Act had a broader reach, extending beyond Article 191.
The Act’s coverage was a topic of discussion among the bench members. Questions arose about whether the Act encompassed fields other than Article 191. The Attorney General confirmed the Act’s expanded scope.
The hearing also delved into the historical context of Article 191 and whether it had been altered since 1973. The Attorney General maintained that Article 191 had remained unaltered and continued to grant legislative power to Parliament.
Various interpretations of the term “law” in Article 191 were explored during the hearing. The bench discussed its possible connotations in the context of legislative policy matters.
The hearing concluded for a break, with the final decision on the Practice and Procedure Act yet to be announced. The Supreme Court continues to evaluate the Act’s constitutionality and its far-reaching implications for legal proceedings in Pakistan.
