Ruling coalition rejects the formation of controversial 8 member SC bench
Ruling coalition vowed to resist attempts to take away parliament's authority and to interfere in its constitutional domain
The ruling coalition
today rejected the formation of an eight-member "controversial" bench
of the Supreme Court that will take up a set of petitions challenging the bill
clipping the chief justice's powers. The hard-hitting response to the
constitution of the bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial came just
hours before the hearing was set to start.
First the
ruling coalition issued a strongly worded statement ahead of the SC hearing, the ruling
coalition vowed to resist attempts to take away parliament's authority and
to interfere in its constitutional domain and later held a press conference.
The bench
will take up four petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and
Procedure) Bill 2023 amidst a boycott by the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) of
court proceedings in protest “against fixation of pleas in haste”.
In its
statement today, the ruling alliance termed the development
"unprecedented" as the pleas were admitted even before the completion
of the legislative process. It said that this is equivalent to sabotaging
the credibility of the country’s highest court, making the constitutional
process of justice “meaningless”.
“This bench itself is a testament to the
division of the SC, which once again supports the earlier stated position of
the ruling parties," the statement read, adding that the ruling alliance
considers this as an “attack” on the parliament and its authority.
Highlighting
the loopholes in the formation of the “controversial” bench which does not
include any of the judges who raised questions on the powers of the CJP, the
coalition parties lamented the non-inclusion of judges from Balochistan and
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The
statement mentioned that the top court judges Justice Isa and Justice Khan had
in their earlier judgments openly expressed their objection to the “one-man
show”, biased and dictatorial behaviour, and the formation of special benches.
“With the
formation of the eight-member controversial bench, the facts stated in the
judgments of these honourable judges have become clearer,” the statement read.
“The
constitution of the controversial bench in haste and fixing the bill for
hearing, apart from the will and intent, also clearly expresses the decision to
come which is sad and tantamount to murder of justice,” the ruling alliance
maintained.
Law minister
Azam Nazir Tarar reiterated that bill can be challenged by the citizens once
its legislation, adding that the entire situation is “alarming” as the
petitions against the "pre-mature" bill is being heard by a
"selective bench".
He said that
the bench does not comprise two senior-most judges and those placed on number
five, seven, and eight according to the list of seniority are not part of the
bench.
The bench is
constituted on a "pick and choose" basis, the law minister said,
adding that there is a conflict of interest as the bill was passed against the
CJP and he himself was leading the bench.
He clarified
the bill was “pre-mature” because it has not yet become an Act as the president
returned the bill without signing it; however, it was fixed for hearing in a
haste and a bench was formed.
Tarar said
that all the bar councils unanimously rejected the formation of the bench.
"Pakistan Bar Council, Sindh Bar Council, Balochistan Bar Council, Punjab
Bar Council, Islamabad Capital Territory Bar Council and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar
Council boycotted the eight-member bench constituted to hear the pleas against
the pre-mature bill," he added.
He said that
the perception that a rift has been created between the parliament and the judiciary
it is not because of the former. "The parliament has the right as per the
law and constitution to legislate for the interest of the people and to make
the institutions strong," he added.
Post a Comment