National Assembly passes bill to clip CJP’s suo motu powers

ISLAMABAD (PPI): National Assembly Wednesday passed the judicial reforms bill tabled in the House under the title of The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023.
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill was introduced in the House after getting approval from National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Law on Wednesday. The NA committee gave its assent to the legislation by incorporating three amendments in it.
Earlier, National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf had referred the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 to the committee of the House for consideration.
Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar had tabled the bill in the House and addressed the legislators about the harmful practices of the suo-motu notices in the past.
Addressing the House, the law minister said in the past the Supreme Court took four suo-motu notices in a day on administrative matters while there has been a lot of criticism regarding the rules of the apex court of the country.
Earlier, the federal cabinet had also approved the Supreme Court Amendment Bill 2023 paving way for handing over the suo-motu powers to a senior judges’ committee.
The cabinet also decided to grant a right of appeal on suo-motu. It is proposed in the bill that three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court will decide the suo-motu notice.
While there is also a proposal to grant a right to file an appeal within 30 days against the suo-motu decision and the appeal should be fixed for hearing within 14 days of its filing.
While commenting on the passing of a motion on voting for the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 in the National Assembly, Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar Wednesday said on the floor of the assembly that law for the judicial reforms should have been passed earlier as Bilawal Bhutto rightly remarked.
“All the bar councils of Pakistan have praised this law,” the law minister said, adding that approval of 47 laws in two hours was part of the history.
“There was a full court bench four years ago. The formation of three-member bench created problems repeatedly. The Parliament will fulfil its responsibility to remove the ambiguity,” he stated. MNA Mohsin Dawar moved an amendment to the bill. Section-by-section approval of the bill continued in the National Assembly till the filing of the report. The judicial reforms bill split the PTI lawmakers on whether to support or oppose the legislation. PTI legislators opposed the bill while renegade members supported the legislation.
Leader of the Opposition Raja Riaz threw his weight behind the judicial reforms bill, saying the legislation was jointly moved by the government and the Opposition.
Another PTI rebel MNA Ahmad Hussain Dahar extended congratulations to the movers of the bill. “Being a lawyer myself I must say this was our old demand. I will salute all if this legislation becomes a law,” he added.
The Bill proposes that every cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan shall be heard and disposed off by a bench constituted by a Committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior most judges in order of seniority.
It further states any matter invoking exercise of original jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution shall be first placed before the committee for examination and if the committee is of the view that a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the fundamental rights is involved then it shall constitute a bench comprising not less than three judges of the apex court, which may also include the members of the committee for adjudication of the matter.
The Bill recommends that an appeal shall lie within 30 days from the final order of a bench of the Supreme Court, which exercised jurisdiction to the larger bench of the apex court and such appeal shall for hearing be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days.
Furthermore, it grants a party the right to appoint counsel of its choice for filing a review application.
An application pleading urgency or seeking interim relief filed in a cause, appeal or matter shall be fixed for hearing within 14 days from the date of its filing.
The House also passed “The Lawyers Welfare and Protection Bill, 2023” aimed at protecting advocates from assaults, criminal force, intimidation and threats, while discharging their professional duties.
Besides, the House passed another three bills. They include; “The Private Power and Infrastructure Board (Amendment) Bill, 2022”, “The Imports and Exports (Control) (Amendment) Bill, 2022” and “The Emigration (Amendment) Bill, 2022”.
Independent lawmaker Mohsin Dawar introduced amendments which were accepted. The sub-clause (1) clause 5 of the bill passed by the Standing Committee suggested that “ An appeal shall lie within thirty days from a final order of a bench of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction under clause (3) of the Article 184 of the Constitution to a larger bench of the Supreme Court and such appeal shall, for hearing, be fixed within a period not exceeding fourteen days. However, MNA Mohsin Dawar suggested to substitute the words “a final” in the above sub-clause with the word “ an” which was accepted. He also suggested to substitute the sub-clause (2) of the clause 5 with the following “The right of appeal under sub-section (1) shall also be available to an aggrieved person against whom an order has been made under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution, prior to the commencement of this Act: Provided that the appeal under this sub-section shall be filed within thirty days of the commencement of this Act.” This amendment was also approved. Earlier, the sub-clause (2) of clause 5 as approved by the committee stated that “ The provision of sub-section (1) shall not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of the section, also apply to the cases decided within 30 days prior to the commencement of this Act”. According to statement of objects and reasons of the bill, the bill would also ensure right of free trail and due process of Law as enshrined under Article 10A of the Constitution.