ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday each institution needs to conduct its own accountability and if it does not do that, then some other institution will step in to carry out its job. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa said: “We (the SC) say we need no accountability, while pendency is rising.” He said when the chief justice does not hold a Full Court meeting (regarding constitution of benches and fixing of cases) but the Parliament frames rules about it, then the chief justice says he will not allow any other organisation to do it.
CJP Faez said these issues have never arisen, adding he had never seen such issues that are being discussed before the bench. “I am not saying all these things for my own benefit,” he clarified. The chief justice remarked it was stated who would hear appeal against the Full Court order/ judgment. He said 99 per cent shortcomings of the past could be overcome by providing an appeal, but due to one per cent deficiencies the law is called a bad law.
A Full Court, headed by Chief Justice Faez Isa heard the petitions against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The proceedings were telecast live on Pakistan Television Corporation.
During the proceeding, there was cross-talk between the chief justice and Justice Munib Akhtar. Faisal Siddiqui, who represented Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), made a submission in support of the Act 2023 but was interrupted by the bench members, as they started to ask various questions. The chief justice then told the counsel instead of replying to the queries he should concentrate on his submission and complete it. He said the questions could be asked (by bench members) after the submission.
However, Justice Munib again asked a question. When the counsel was about to respond to it Justice Faez told him: “Please conclude your contention.” Further telling him the questions in the middle of the argument breaks the chain of thought. He said the time invested in this case if utilised in other cases then a lot of pendency could have been reduced. He said three full days have been spent on this case. At that, Faisal Siddiqui smiled. Upon that, Justice Faez told him this was not a laughing matter.
When Siddiqui resumed the argument, Justice Munib interjected and commented. The chief justice told the counsel to proceed with his submission, saying; “A counsel is entitled to argue the case in his own way.” Justice Munib then said: “As a judge of this Court I am entitled to ask questions and if I will be interrupted then this is not the way.”
Siddiqui argued that there is nothing in the constitution that equates the chief justice with the Supreme Court. He said the independence of the judiciary is not reduced if the CJP shares his power with the two most senior judges of the Supreme Court.
Justice Athar Minallah said if a law promotes the interest of the litigants then how it could be deemed as the question of the independence of the judiciary.
Justice Musarat Hilali questioned if there was any need for improvement in the Supreme Court Rules, particularly in respect of Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which had shaken the foundation of Pakistan.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired if the Supreme Court could enhance the members of the Committee, which is proposed in the Practice and Procedure Act for the constitution of the bench and the fixation of the cases. He said if tomorrow the Full Court decides that instead of three members in the committee there should be five, can it do it? Faisal Siddiqui responded, “No”.
Justice Faez said the making of rules for deciding the petitions filed under Article 184(3) is binding on the Supreme Court if a three-judge bench in the exercise of judicial power passes an order. Does such an order have constitutional importance and binding if the rules are not made? Can judicial order to make rules be thwarted by a press release of the SC Registrar?
The CJP observed that a lot of issues accumulated could not be addressed because the Full Court meeting was not convened. He inquired from the MQM-P counsel when was the last time the Full Court hearing was held. Siddiqui responded in 2015 a Full Court heard the petitions against the 21st Amendment, adding eight years ago Full Court was held.
Justice Munib Akhtar said had the Full Court made the Rules regarding the benches and the fixation of cases then it was okay but here the Parliament became the Master of the Roster and made the rules for the Court through an Act of Parliament. The chief justice remarked that from the start of this case, it was his opinion that if the CJP does not convene a Full Court meeting and if the Parliament frames rules then what is the harm in it?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.