SC ruling elicits mixed reactions

The Supreme Court's much-awaited ruling on the controversial SC (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023 has sparked reactions from politicians and legal experts.

The law, which curtails the chief justice's powers, has divided opinions, with some hailing the ruling as a "welcome step" towards a more democratic judiciary, while others express concerns about potential unconstitutional interference in judicial affairs.

PML-N leader Shehbaz Sharif, under whose tenure the law was passed, praised the decision, stating that it not only brings greater transparency to the functioning of the Supreme Court, but also respects the authority of parliament, which represents the people of Pakistan.

“It not only democratises the workings of the Supreme Court itself but also shows due respect to parliament, which represents the people of Pakistan,” he wrote on X.

However, the former prime minister claimed that the specific clause discussed in the ruling does not affect his brother, Nawaz Sharif, according to legal experts.

Sherry Rehman, a former minister and PPP leader, highlighted the significance of the ruling in terms of enhancing transparency and improving the image of the superior court. She also emphasised its importance for upholding the supremacy of parliament in its role of enacting laws.

“It is also an important step forward for parliament’s supremacy in its first obligation of making laws,” she said on X.
Meanwhile, the PTI, in a statement suggested that the ruling had disappointed a particular political party, a tacit reference to the PML-N.

The PTI pointed out that the verdict had eliminated the possibilities of conspiracies against Imran Khan, the party's chairman, and that any fake or false cases against him would not affect his reputation for honesty.

“After the majority verdict of the SC, the possibilities of conspiracies against Sadiq and Amin Imran Khan have died.”

Taking to X, legal expert Salaar Khan pointed out that the practice and procedure law had previously been criticised as a "person-specific law" designed to provide an appeal for former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

He suggested that those who had criticised the law would take solace in the fact that the right of appeal in cases already decided had not been upheld.

“They may now seek some solace in knowing that the only part of the law that hasn’t been upheld is the right of appeal in cases already decided,” he said in a post on X.

Another lawyer, Muhammad Ahmad Pansota, stated that Nawaz Sharif would not benefit from Wednesday's ruling, as he would be unable to file an appeal against his Panama disqualification.

However, Pansota noted that through an act of parliament, the disqualification under 62(1)(f) had been limited to five years, which have now passed.

Nevertheless, this legislation conflicts with a Supreme Court judgment, which could lead to interesting developments once Sharif files his nomination papers for the upcoming elections.

The SC’s ruling has generated varied reactions from politicians and legal experts, with some hailing it as an important step towards a more transparent and democratic judiciary, while others express concerns about potential interference in judicial affairs.