Federal govt says SC procedure law ensures independence of judiciary

ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Thursday submitted a concise statement in the Practice and Procedure law saying that the Act has ensured the independence of the judiciary.

The concise statement was submitted by Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman in response to the queries, put by the full court. The federal government submitted that the Act would ensure the democratic process in the constitution of benches as well as make the judicial system transparent. The federal government submitted that suspending the Act by an eight-member bench was unconstitutional adding that if the Act remains then protection should be given to the decisions so far made by the apex court.

It was further contended that the right of appeal in cases under Article 184(3) of the constitution could be provided through a simple legislation adding that earlier without review, the affected party had no choice of right of an appeal. It further says that Article 204 regarding contempt of court did not provide the right of appeal however, the Parliament while enacting practice and procedure law provided also right of appeal in contempt cases as well. It also contended that the constitution does not hold that the Chief Justice will be the Master of the Roster adding that this concept was taken from the Indian judiciary. The reply further submitted that Parliament is competent to make legislation.

In a related development, Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) requested the Supreme Court to dismiss all the identical petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 and an interim order passed by the apex court on April 13, may be vacated.

In its concise statement submitted before the court in the matter, the PML-N through its counsel Salahuddin Ahmed prayed the apex court to dismiss the identical petitions. It contended that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 is intra vires of the constitution and is a good law praying that as such all petitions may be dismissed and the interim order passed by this court on April 13 may be vacated.

The PML-N submitted that it is said that allowing the legislature to regulate judicial procedure would set a dangerous precedent for the independence of the judiciary. Even if the present legislation appears benign, the next attempt could be more sinister but if legislation is challenged on grounds that it violates the independence of the judiciary and fundamental rights guanrteed, inter alia, in Articles 4 and 10A of the constitution, the petitioner must demonstrate how it is so”, the PML-N questioned.

The concise statement also argued that such changes to the practice and procedure of this court can only be done through constitutional amendment and not ordinary legislation. The PML-N contended that the argument is self-contradictory adding that if Parliament cannot legislate on judicial practice and procedure because it violates independence of the judiciary, it cannot do so through constitutional amendments either.