Each institution must hold itself accountable: CJP

Top judge says otherwise parliament wouldn’t have passed practice and procedure law

ISLAMABAD:

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday, while hearing the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act case, observed that parliament would not have needed to come up with such a law if the judiciary had carried out its job properly.

“Every institution would have to conduct its own accountability. If self-accountability was not performed, then someone else would come and carry it out,” he added as a full court comprising 15 judges resumed its proceedings in the petitions filed against the law.

The law, passed by parliament in April 2023, regulates the discretionary powers of the CJP by requiring a committee of three senior judges of the apex court, including the chief justice, to form benches for constitutional matters of public importance and taking suo motu notices.

As the full court headed by the CJP kicked off its proceedings, the judges started asking their questions.
The CJP requested them to wait until the lawyers presented their arguments and then ask them related queries.

Read Regulating CJ’s powers: Will SC finally accept parliament’s competence?

At that stage when Justice Munib Akhtar wanted to ask a question again, the CJP reminded him that the judges were hearing the case as a full court.

“If we take a year to hear a case, how will it reflect on our performance?” CJP Isa asked Justice Munib.
Justice Munib responded that asking a question was his right as a judge and it should not be interrupted.

CJP Isa smilingly told Justice Munib that it was him who was “interrupting”.

During the hearing, MQM-P lawyer Faisal Siddiqui, referring to the judgments of Justice Munib and Justice Ayesha Malik, said that both judges – when they were in high courts – had upheld the parliamentary legislation of conceiving an inter-court appeal.

At one stage when the CJP asked the MQM-P lawyer a question, Justice Munib asked him a query at the same time.

The MQM-P lawyer smilingly asked Justice Munib: “Sir, with your permission [can I reply to your question first]?”

When Justice Munib told him: “Yes, please,” CJP Isa reminded the judge that he had not sought his permission and asked him were these not his “double standards”.

The CJP emphasized that he had asked the fewest questions and at the very least the “Master of the Roster” should have his query answered.

Justice Munib told the MQM-P lawyer to respond to the “sahib’s” [CJP] question first.

CJP Isa remarked that the judges should keep their vision open. “If I don't call a full court meeting, can a writ petition be filed against me? What if 14 judges want to call a full court meeting and I don't want to?” he asked.

Read more CJP Isa seeks input on judges’ appointment criteria

When Justice Munib referenced the US Supreme Court on one occasion, the CJP pointed out that it did not contend with the staggering burden of 56,000 pending cases, as is the situation in Pakistan.

He further noted that the US Supreme Court typically hears approximately 120 cases annually, a stark contrast to Pakistan, where nearly every legal matter finds its way to the highest court.

The CJP emphasized the need to make an apt comparison, urging, “Let’s compare apples to apples rather than oranges.”

Justice Ayesha Malik asked if the full court continued to hear the case, who would hear the appeal against its verdict? The MQM-P lawyer replied that even if the number of judges reached 50, an appeal against the decision of the full court could not be heard.

The CJP observed that a law could not be declared invalid because there was no right of appeal against the decision of the full court.

Justice Mussarat Hilali noted that the SC had shaken the foundations of the country by using Article 184(3).

She told the MQM lawyer that the Constitution was drafted in 1973 and the rules were prepared in 1980. “You don't think there is a need for improvement?” she asked him.

The hearing of the case will be held again on Wednesday (today).