SC Bill – an analytical review

The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill 2023, proposes that every case, appeal, or matter heard and decided by the Supreme Court be heard and decided by a bench comprised of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the two most senior justices in order of seniority. It also states that any matter invoking original jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution shall first be placed before the committee for examination, and if the committee with majority believes that a question of public importance pertaining to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights is involved, it shall constitute a bench consisting of not less than three judges of the apex court, who may also be committee members. The Bill further recommends that an appeal be filed within 30 days of the final judgment of a Supreme Court bench that exercised jurisdiction to the larger bench of the Supreme Court, and that such appeal be scheduled for hearing within fourteen days. Furthermore, while submitting a review application, a party may select counsel of their choice. An application in a cause, appeal, or problem alleging urgency or demanding interim relief must be heard within 14 days after its filing. The President, however, sent the law backs with some remarks a short while later. In conformity with the Constitution, the returning law has now been resubmitted to the President for approval after being accepted with certain new amendment by the Parliament in a joint session, and it will be presumed that the President has approved it under the terms if he doesn’t respond in 10 days, it will eventually become law and an Act of Parliament, with the implication that he acted in conformity with the Constitution. The President’s “deemed assent” clause is known as this in Article 75(3) of the 1973 Constitution. The Supreme Court is a separate branch of the government, and the Constitution guarantees its independence. The division of powers between the executive, legislative branch, and the judicial branch is established by the Constitution. In countries with common law systems, the court is often more decentralized and independent. In these countries, the judiciary’s independence is generally guaranteed by the Constitution and laws, and the Parliament’s ability to interfere with the court’s operations is frequently constrained. Comparatively speaking, a civil law legal system often has a more centralized and hierarchical judicial structure. In some nations, the Parliament may have further control over the functioning of the court, including the authority to establish rules affecting the makeup of benches. The judiciary is typically more decentralized and independent in nations with common law systems. In these nations, the Constitution and statutes frequently guarantee the independence of the judiciary and place restrictions on the capacity of the Parliament to interfere with the court’s operation. However, a civil law legal system, in contrast, typically has a more centralized and hierarchical judicial organization. In these countries, the Parliament might have additional power over the judiciary’s operations; including the power to create regulations governing the composition of benches regarding the scheduling of proceedings, but not in the Pakistani common law system. The Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which replaced the earlier SC Rules, 1956 and were drafted in conformity with Article 191 of the Constitution, as well as the Constitution as a whole, specify the Chief Justice’s authority. Generally speaking, the Chief Justice’s power is intended to assist in the effective administration of the court’s business, bench composition, and case scheduling. The courts have occasionally deemed laws impacting the Supreme Court’s or other courts’ internal operations illegal or overturned them in several nations. The Constitution places restrictions on the Parliament’s capacity to interfere with the independence of the court, even though it can pass laws in Pakistan. To protect people’s fundamental rights and the independence of the judiciary, the Constitution guarantees judicial independence. As a result, all laws passed by the Parliament must uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the independence of the court. It is unquestionably true under the law that every piece of legislation passed by Parliament is subject to judicial review by Superior Courts and that any laws found to be in contravention of the Constitution or the independence of the judiciary may be struck down by the courts in judicial review. The Supreme Court created these norms by Full Court in 1980, in line with Constitutional Article 191, which allows the Supreme Court the ability to govern its practice and procedure. The Supreme Court Rules of 1980 were formed with legal standing to ensure the effective and efficient administration of the Court, including the Chief Justice’s jurisdiction over the creation of Benches, the fixing of cases, and Suo motu proceedings. Only the decisions of the Full Court could simplify or limit the Supreme Court’s internal operations and the Chief Justice’s responsibilities. The Supreme Court’s Full Court, comprised of all of its justices, has the authority to hear cases, deliver decisions, establish standards of practice, and administers the court’s internal operations, among other things. It is critical to note that the Full Court’s power is limited by the Constitution and any applicable legislation. The Chief Justice of Pakistan and the judiciary, in general, are autonomous parts of government, and any attempt by Parliament to limit the Chief Justice’s power or interfere with the judiciary’s independence would be difficult to justify in court. The proper channels for resolving concerns about the Chief Justice’s or any other judge’s conduct or performance would be through the judicial review procedure, which requires constitutional petitions to the Supreme Court itself. Because of the explicit requirements of Articles 175 and 191 of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the internal operations of the Supreme Court, including the responsibilities of the Chief Justice, are not subject to intervention by the Parliament or any other external institution. As a result, the government would have a tough time justifying any such divergence from the established constitutional framework as a valid statute in a court of law.