Islamabad: During the hearing of a case against the amendments to the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, concerning the powers of the Chief Justice and the procedure for self-notices, Chief Justice remarked in the Supreme Court that the government should consult the Supreme Court regarding legislation on the judiciary.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan chaired the 8-member larger bench for the hearing of the case. The bench includes Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Hasan Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Wahid.
It should be noted that the court has halted the implementation of the law.
During today’s hearing, the Chief Justice of Pakistan asked the Attorney General, “Mr. Attorney General, do you have anything to say?”
The Attorney General responded, “We have two laws, one is the Supreme Court Review of Orders and Judgments Act, and the other is the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act. Both laws have similarities in terms of review and advocacy. The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act is broader as it deals with internal matters of the Supreme Court. It is necessary to determine which law to rely on and reach a resolution on this matter.”
Chief Justice stated that both laws can refer to Parliament for harmony. We welcome your suggestion and are pleased that Parliament and the government are amending laws in a similar manner. The government should consult with the Supreme Court regarding legislation on the judiciary.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar stated that it needs to be seen if the problem can be solved if the laws are similar. If the laws have similarities, then hearing requests related to the Full Court will be a waste of time.
The Attorney General stated that the court can refer this matter to Parliament.
The Chief Justice stated that they will not send this matter to Parliament. If Parliament and the government provide any recommendations, they will consider them. Review of the order is similar to Section 4 and Section 6, and the procedure for review is also similar in both laws. I am confident that the Attorney General and the lawyers of the Muslim League-N do not want to present evidence during such a conflict. A decision has been made not to send the matter to Parliament. Let’s bring laws on contradictory legislation.