On May 2, the Supreme Court will hear petitions against a law that would limit the authority of the Chief Justice.

ISLAMABAD – On May 2, the Supreme Court will hear petitions filed against the measure limiting the authority of Pakistan’s Chief Justice.

The petitions will be heard by an eight-member SC bench consisting of CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyad Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Waheed.

The petitions were submitted under Article 184(3) by advocates Muhammad Shafay Munir, Raja Amer Khan, and Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain.

The petitions contended that the Supreme Court was an autonomous body, and that all justices, including the CJP, should be free to execute their duties without interference from the other institution.

According to the petitions, the Supreme Court and its corpus, as specified in Article 176, comprise of the CJP and as many additional justices as the parliament may designate or, pending such determination, as the president may set. The CJP is clearly the centrifugal force, and the whole fabric of the highest court is webbed around him. The petitions emphasised that the independence of the judiciary and each of its judges and CJP is proclaimed as a goal enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution; this is a part of the objective resolution and therefore a substantive component of the constitution.

To fulfil its constitutional duty of bringing justice to the people of Pakistan, the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and its justices, must be independent of any executive or legislative transgressions. The same cannot be compromised in terms of the role of the state’s judicial organ, the judges or CJP, or their independence as established in the constitution, according to the appeal.

The legislation

The Supreme Court (Practise and Procedure) Bill 2023 seeks to deprive the CJP of the authority to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity.

It was first approved by both chambers of parliament and sent to the president for his signature. However, the president had returned it, claiming that the proposed law went “beyond the competence of parliament.” The measure was later approved by a joint session of parliament, but with minor changes.