Sindh High Court Building
The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act has sparked significant controversy in Pakistan’s political and legal circles, with a range of opinions and challenges surfacing since its enactment. The Act, which redefines various aspects of how the Supreme Court functions, has become a focal point of heated debate, particularly concerning the powers and discretion it gives or limits within the judicial system. Various political parties, especially the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and lawyer bodies have raised constitutional and legal objections, leading to a wave of petitions and legal challenges, questioning the constitutionality and implications of the Act.
The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act is a piece of legislation introduced to reform and regulate certain aspects of how the apex court in Pakistan functions, including its internal processes, appointment of benches, and the rules surrounding judicial practice. One of the most notable provisions of the Act relates to the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, particularly in the constitution of benches and the handling of suo motu (on its own motion) cases.
Historically, the Chief Justice of Pakistan had broad, unilateral powers to form benches and allocate cases. This power has been a point of contention, as critics argue that it can be subject to misuse and lack of transparency. The new law, aiming to introduce checks and balances, proposes that a committee of senior judges, rather than the Chief Justice alone, should decide the composition of benches and the use of suo motu powers. Additionally, the Act introduces new procedures intended to ensure greater accountability and efficiency in the functioning of the Supreme Court.
While the stated aim of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act is to make judicial processes more transparent and accountable, the legislation has been met with fierce opposition, especially from political parties like the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and several lawyer bodies.
The PTI has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Act, viewing it as an infringement on the judiciary’s independence and a political maneuver designed to limit the Supreme Court’s powers. The party filed a constitutional petition challenging the recently issued presidential ordinance that enacted the Act, claiming that it undermines the Supreme Court’s ability to function independently and violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The PTI’s petition argues that all decisions made by the newly formed Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Committee (which the Act established) should be annulled as illegal. In essence, the party believes that the ordinance is not only unconstitutional but also politically motivated to dilute the authority of the judiciary at a time when the courts are hearing several politically sensitive cases.
During the hearing of this petition, Chief Justice Alia Neelam of the Lahore High Court was asked to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, with PTI’s counsel, Muneer Ahmed, arguing that the law oversteps the executive’s boundaries and infringes on judicial independence. The PTI’s stance has been echoed by several of its leaders, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has called the law “an attempt to curtail the judiciary’s independence and tamper with its ability to act as a check on the executive.”
Justice Alia Neelum delivered the ruling, requesting additional evidence from the petitioner to support their case. She also issued notices to both the Advocate General Punjab and the Attorney General, asking them to provide assistance in the matter. The next hearing is scheduled for October 2, when the court will revisit the case.
Imran Khan and other senior PTI leaders have framed the controversy surrounding the Act as a political maneuver by the current government to clip the wings of an independent judiciary, especially in light of recent rulings unfavorable to the government. According to Khan, “The government is using every tool at its disposal to weaken the judiciary because it knows that an independent Supreme Court is the biggest threat to its corrupt practices.”
The Act has also ignited concern within the legal fraternity. Many lawyers and legal experts believe that the legislation undermines the traditional autonomy of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and could potentially open the judiciary up to political interference. The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have been divided in their responses, with some factions supporting the Act as a necessary reform while others view it as an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial independence.
Several prominent lawyers, including Hamid Khan and Ali Zafar, have argued against the legislation. Hamid Khan remarked that “Any attempt to curtail the Chief Justice’s prerogative to constitute benches is an assault on the institution itself. The judiciary must remain free from political interference, and this Act attempts to politicize the judiciary’s internal functioning.”
Ali Zafar, who has represented PTI in various legal matters, also criticized the Act, stating that it “clearly violates the principles of judicial independence. Such a law should have been thoroughly debated and considered in parliament, but instead, it was rushed through in the form of an ordinance, which raises serious questions about the government’s intentions.”
As the controversy continues to simmer, various high courts have taken up petitions challenging the validity of the Act. The Lahore High Court (LHC) has announced the reserved decision over the admissibility of petition challenging the Supreme Court’s Practice and Procedure Ordinance.
In a related development, the Sindh High Court has heard petitions challenging the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act. Concerns raised include possible constitutional breaches and fears of executive overreach via presidential ordinances. Justice Yousuf Ali Syed, who presided over the proceedings, has reserved the court’s judgment, with the decision expected to be announced soon.
The legal argument against the Act is rooted in the contention that it disrupts the delicate balance between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. By introducing legislation that changes how the Supreme Court functions internally, critics argue that the executive is infringing upon the judiciary’s independence, potentially influencing how and when the judiciary can hear certain cases—particularly those that involve political figures and government actions.
On the other hand, proponents of the Act, including some within the current government, argue that the legislation is necessary to ensure greater transparency and accountability within the judiciary. The federal law minister, Azam Nazir Tarar, defended the ordinance, stating that “The Act ensures that the powers of the Chief Justice are not arbitrary and that decisions about bench composition are made more democratically, in line with the practices of many other countries.”
Supporters of the law also argue that it is not designed to weaken the judiciary, but rather to improve its functioning by introducing collective decision-making, which would reduce the perception of bias or favoritism in judicial appointments and case allocations.
The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act has ignited a fierce legal and political debate in Pakistan, with its critics seeing it as an unconstitutional encroachment on the judiciary’s independence, while its supporters argue it is a necessary reform to ensure transparency and accountability. With multiple high courts currently considering petitions challenging the Act, the fate of the legislation remains uncertain. At its heart, the controversy raises important questions about the balance of power between Pakistan’s branches of government and the independence of its judiciary—a fundamental issue that could have long-lasting implications for the country’s legal and political landscape.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance
