Supreme Court begins hearing of Presidential Reference today

The Supreme Court begins hearing of a Presidential Reference against the 'Hisba' (accountability) Bill' on Monday, Court's officials say.
The NWFP assembly passed the law in November 2006 to set up a police system to promote virtue and eliminate vice, a move dubbed by the opposition parties as "unconstitutional."
A larger bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Justice Khalil-Ur-Rehman Ramday, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk will hear the reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.
A five-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, stayed the 'Hisba' Bill 2006 from being enacted, or being deemed to be enacted into an Act of the NWFP on December 15.
The Supreme Court had issued notices to the NWFP government.
The Attorney General of Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan, in the Presidential Reference had argued that the Hisba Bill 2006 was unconstitutional for the same reasons as those given by the Supreme Court in its earlier opinion regarding the Hisba Bill 2005 in Reference No 2 of 2005.
Following are excerpts from the Presidential Reference:
"In the previous reference, the Supreme Court had found the Hisba Bill 2005 to be 'vague, overboard, unreasonable, based on excessive delegation of jurisdiction, denying the right of access to justice to the citizens and attempting to set up a parallel judicial system.'
"As in the case of the Hisba Bill 2005, the Hisba Mohtasibs were authorised under the Hisba Bill 2006 to issue "Hokum Namas" to executive officials which orders were backed up by a Hisba police and the power to initiate contempt proceedings. The Hisba Bill 2006 creates a parallel judicial system in violation of Article 175 of the Constitution.
The Hisba Bill 2006 still contained penal provisions which were defined in unacceptably vague terms in violation of the earlier opinion of the Supreme Court.
In its earlier judgement, the Supreme Court had declared the Zila Mohtasib's office as created under the Hisba Bill 2005 to be unconstitutional as there was already a provision for such as office under the NWFP Local Government Ordinance, 2001, but that no amendment had been made in the Hisba Bill 2006.
In addition the concurring opinion in the earlier reference had declared the definition of "Aalim" in the Hisba Bill 2005 to be arbitrary and unconstitutional but that this definition had not been changed in the Hisba Bill in violation of the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Detailed arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Hisba Bill 2006 will now be heard when the reference comes up of the final hearing.
In the reference, the President has referred the following questions of law to the Supreme Court:
Whether the Hisba Bill 2006 and all of its provisions are in consonance with the Hisba judgement?
Whether the Hisba Bill 2006 or any of its provisions, would be ultra vires the Constitution, if enacted?
Whether the Hisba Bill 2006 is ultra vires of the Constitution as it purposed to de-legislate a provision of law having constitutional protection?
Whether the Hisba Bill 2006 or any of it s provisions, would, if enacted, be violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part II, Chapter I of the Constitution, including but not limited to Articles 9, 14, 16to 20, 22 and 25 thereof?
Whether the Hisba Bill 2006 or any of its provisions would, if enacted, be violative of Articles 2A, 4, 27, 203G 212, of the Constitution?
Whether the enactment of the Hisba Bill 2006 would encroach on any occupied field, violate the Constitution by creating a parallel judicial system, undermine judicial independence and deny citizen their right of access to justice?
Whether the enactment of the Hisba Bill 2006 would violate the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution?
Whether the Hisba Bill, and in particular Section 23 read with Sections 10, 12, and 14 therefore, is unconstitutionally overboard and vague and suffers from excessive delegation?
Whether the enactment of the Hisba Bill 2006 would result in an unconstitutional abdication of legislative power?
Whether the provision restricting the appointment of Mohtasibs to "Aalims" as defined in the Hisba Bill 2006 are arbitrary and not justifiable in light of Article 25 of the Constitution?
If the answer to any one or of the above questions is in the affirmative, whether the Governor, NWFP is obliged to sign into law the Hisba Bill 2006 passed by the NWFP Assembly.