Legal fraternity rejects ‘premature petitions’

CJ's decision to keep senior-most judges off of larger bench hearing case against pending SC bill invites criticism

ISLAMABAD:

The legal fraternity has strongly reacted over the composition of the eight-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing “premature petitions” against the SC (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023, saying that the selection of judges for this purpose was justifying that the discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan should be regulated.

CJP Umar Ata Bandial has continued his trend of not including two senior-most judges, namely Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, in a larger bench hearing politically sensitive cases.

The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) – the apex regularity body of lawyers -- has announced a complete strike and boycott of court proceedings all over the country against the SC hearing.

PBC Executive Committee Chairman Hasan Raza Pasha said the legislation for regulating the CJP’s powers was carried out on the bar’s demand.

Even Hamid Khan, the head of the Professional Group, told the media that the perception should have ended that only “like-minded” judges were included in a larger bench.

Another PBC member, Amjad Shah, lamenting the present state of affairs, has warned that the SC would be responsible if the parliamentary system in the country derailed.

He made it clear that it was not an issue of the rule of law but a “war for supremacy” wherein everything was fair to achieve the desired objective.

Advocate Mirza Moiz Baig said the formation of a bench to hear the petitions against the bill by excluding senior judges had raised concerns about the CJP's “unfettered” powers to constitute benches and that would only accentuate the chasm within the top court.

“Such concerns are particularly pertinent given that the hearing has been scheduled before the bill has taken effect,” he continued.

Baig pointed out that another aspect of the present controversy was that Article IV of the judges’ code of conduct restrained them from acting in a matter that involved their own interest.

“Given that the bill regulates the unbridled powers vested in the office of the CJP, the bench hearing a challenge thereto ought to comprise judges, who are not expected to serve as a chief justice during their respective tenures,” he added.

Former Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) president Salahuddin Ahmed said someone had just pointed out that the case was even prematurely listed as “Setting aside the SC Bill 2023”.

Another legal analyst Reema Omer said the CJP must use his discretionary powers under rules to constitute benches fairly, transparently, and in a structured manner.

“In 2014, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill [related to the process of appointment of the judges] was challenged in the Indian Supreme Court before it became law," she added.

Advocate Salar Khan pointed out that with the predictability of this bench, the CJP, himself, made the best case for passing the very same law that this petition had challenged.