February, 23, 2024
Time
Supreme Court Upholds Parliament's Power

Supreme Court Upholds Parliament’s Power

Infostani International- In the detailed judgment on the Practice and Procedure Act case, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faiz Isa in a 22-page ruling, declared that Parliament holds the power to regulate the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Isa emphasized that Parliament’s enactment of the Practice and Procedure Act did not violate the constitution; rather, it strengthened the judiciary, ensuring ease of access to justice and transparency. The judiciary’s independence remained intact, and no undermining of the Supreme Court occurred.

Former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, heading the bench, initially scheduled the case for a hearing in July but faced delays until August, citing objections from the Registrar’s Office. Although the case proceeded without addressing the Registrar’s objections, the judgment underscored that the Chief Justice alone lacked the authority to make decisions, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the judiciary.

Supreme Court Advocates Judicial Reform for Enhanced Transparency and Constitutional Oversight

Supreme Court Upholds Parliament's Power
Which is superior — Supreme Court or parliament?

The constitution, as per the judgment, does not empower the Chief Justice to unilaterally decide cases. Emphasizing the need for decisions in accordance with the constitution and law. The term “master” was criticized as derogatory and contrary to democratic principles and Sharia, prompting the call for its exclusion. The Supreme Court, comprised of the Chief Justice and other members. Should not substitute its opinion for that of Parliament, upholding mutual respect between institutions.

The judgment suggested that a committee, including the Chief Justice and two senior judges. Would enhance the judiciary’s strength without compromising its independence. Justice Yahya Afridi, in an additional note. Emphasized the importance of transparency in forming judicial benches, especially in politically charged environments. The recommendation to nullify the right of appeal under Article 184(3) proposed that reinstating this right should follow the path of constitutional amendment, not simple legislation. The advisory power under Article 186, akin to Article 184(3), should be subject to regulation.

Weaverex.ltd powered this Article.