The Supreme
Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 peregrination beyond the capability of the congress and
can be assailed as
a color able legislation,
The chairman said in his reply.
The
Senate had on March 30 passed the bill.
Which aims to deprive the office of the principal justice of Pakistan (CJP) of powers to take SUO MOTU notices in an individual capacity.
The
bill was approved by the civil press on
March 28, and latterly, the National
Assembly passed it as well after a many emendations suggested by
the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. On March 30, it was passed by the
Senate
The emendations proposed in the Supreme Court’s rules have sparked a debate in legal and political circles,
with some attorneys criticizing it and
others saying it was a important- demanded bill.
In his detailed reply,
which he also posted on Twitter,
the chairman said that
he allowed it fit and proper to return the
bill, in agreement with the
Constitution, with “ the request for retrospection in order to meet the scrutiny about
its validity( if assailed in the court of law) ”.
ALVI stressed the need for consideration of a aspects after
“vetting” the bill.
He highlighted that
Article 191 of the RULE authorized the Supreme Court to make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.
The chairman noted that
“Under similar enabling vittles of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court Rules 1980 have been made and
in force properly validated- and espoused by
the Constitution itself. ”
This indicates that these rules have been validated and espoused by the Rule itself.
He further stated that “these time
tested Rules are being followed ever since the time 1980.
Any tinkering with the same may tantamount to hindrance with
the internal working of the Court,
Its autonomy and independence”
ALVI advised that
any attempt to modify or
tamper with these rules could be viewed as hindrance with the internal workings
of the court, which could compromise its autonomy and independence.
He went on
to say that the Constitution was innovated on
the conception of trichotomy of power — three pillars of
The state whose sphere of power, authority and functions were defined and delineated by
the Constitution itself.
The congress has also been given the power under Composition 67 that states — subject to the Constitution, a house may make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of
its business. ”
Composition 191 states
that subject to the Constitution
and law, the Supreme Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the court.
He explained that Articles
67 & 191 were akin to each other and honor the autonomy and independence of
each other independently — barring hindrance of
one into the other’s sphere.
The head of the state further said the top court is an independent institution as, Visualized
by the founding fathers that in the state of
Pakistan independence of bar shall be completely secured ”.
With such an ideal in view, Composition 191 was incorporated and the
Supreme Court was kept out
of the law- making authority of the congress,
” he stressed.
He said the capability of
the congress to make laws stemmed
from the Constitution itself.
The chairman worried that
“Composition 70 relates to ‘preface and end of
Bills’ with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List.
Enumerated in the Fourth Schedule of
the Constitution. ”
He further explained that
“ followed and further affirmed are the vittles of Composition 142 ( a) that
Parliament can — make laws ‘ with respect to
any matter in the Federal Legislative
List ’. ”
Still, the chairman noted that “Entry
55 of Part I Fourth Schedule while empowering the congress to make laws in respect of ‘ governance and powers of all courts except
the Supreme Court ’ especially barred the Supreme Court. ”
The chairman concluded his observation by questioning the feasibility of the idea and asked, “
Can such a purpose be achieved without amending the vittles of applicable papers of the Constitution ”
He further emphasized that the
Constitution isn't an ordinary law but an personification of abecedarian principles, advanced law, and law above other laws.
Amusement as
a worker of the PTI PM SHAHBAZ.
Replying to
the chairman’s move,
Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif said it was “utmost unfortunate”.
“Through his conduct, he has belittled the
august Office by acting as a worker of The PTI, one who's bounden to Imran Niazi further than
the Constitution and demands of his office, he twittered.
Climate Change Minister Senator Sherry Rahman
criticized ALVI for following the
PTI’s policy.
In a tweet moment, she said, “By returning the Supreme Court bill to
the congress) for review,
President Arif Alvi has proved that he's not the country’s chairman but the PTI’s clerk general indeed now. ”
Saying that Alvi had looked at “congress every decision with
the perspective of the PTI Rahman stressed that he'd formerly stated his station on
the matter in an interview before indeed entering the said bill.
She added, “He's following his party’s policy, not
his indigenous part as
the chairman. ”
“ The chairman is saying that this bill is outside the congress’s authority?
He kept running the
President House like an constitution plant for three and a half times how can he be apprehensive of the congress’s powers? President, don't educate the congress legislation,
” she said
Meanwhile,
PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry called on the coalition government to “ take a breath( and) suppose ” rather of trying to amend laws upon a
“ many people’s wishes ”.
The government shouldn't make legislation inferior to
a many people’s wishes. After attempts to amend the Supreme Court rules, dwindling the chairman’s powers by amending the choices Act ( 2017) is foolish legislation. ”
Addressing the government, he said, “You should take a breath ( to) suppose and make emendations in
your politics. No bone will accept emendations (made) in such a hurry.
SC authority cannot be changed by
any routine legislation ’
Barrister Assad Rahim Khan, a columnist
and legal judge, told Dawn News TV that the issues with the bill were veritably clear.
The Supreme Court’s authority cannot be (changed) by any routine legislation,
” he said. “ But the parliamentarians champed that believing that
this law would be correct. ”
Barrister
Khan also questioned the
timing of the legislation,
Which he said would be venturing the independence of the bar and
the separation of powers. “
Unless the Structure
The chairman did the right thing. ”
When asked what options the government has after the bill was returned, Barrister Khan said that the parliamentarians will now bandy the bill in a common session, and if they shoot it back to the chairman for his assent, he has 10 days to subscribe it.( And if he doesn't subscribe it) in the 10- day period, the bill will be supposed to have passed, he added
0 Comments