ISLAMABAD    -    President Arif Alvi Sat­urday returned the Su­preme Court (Prac­tice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 for reconsideration to the Parliament as per the provisions of Article 75 of the Constitution.

The president ob­served that the Bill ‘pri­ma-facie travels beyond the competence of the Parliament and can be assailed as a colourable legislation'. 

Reacting the decision of the president, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said that President Alvi was acting as a worker of the PTI, one who is beholden to Imran Nia­zi more than the Consti­tution & demands of his Office. “President Alvi returning the Supreme Court Bill duly passed by Parliament is most unfortunate. Through his conduct, he has be­littled the august Office by acting as a worker of the PTI, one who is be­holden to Imran Niazi more than the Consti­tution & demands of his Office,” the PM tweeted late Saturday. 

On the other hand, the president said that he thought it fit and prop­er to return the bill, in accordance with the Constitution, with the request for reconsider­ation in order to meet the scrutiny about its validity (if assailed in the Court of Law), Pres­ident Secretariat Press Wing said in a press re­lease on Saturday. 

The president said that after an in-depth consideration of the Supreme Court (Prac­tice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, “to provide for the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of Pakistan”, the following aspects required duconsideration: - Article 191 of the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court ‘to make rules reg­ulating the practice and procedure of the Court’. 

Under such enabling provisions of the Consti­tution, the Supreme Court Rules 1980 had been made and in force duly validated and adopted by the Constitution itself. 

“These time-test­ed Rules are being fol­lowed ever since the year 1980 – any tinkering with the same may tan­tamount to interference with the internal work­ing of the Court, its auton­omy and independence,” it was added. The Con­stitution was founded on the concept of trichoto­my of power – three pil­lars of the State whose domain of power, author­ity and functions were defined and delineated by the Constitution itself. The Parliament has also been given the power un­der Article 67 that stated “subject to the Constitu­tion, a House may make rules for regulating its procedure and the con­duct of its business….”. Article 191 stated that “subject to the Consti­tution and law, the Su­preme Court may make rules regulating the prac­tice and procedure of the Court”. 

Articles 67 & 191 are akin to each other and recognize the autonomy and independence of each other respectively – bar­ring interference of one into the other’s domain. 

“Supreme Court of Pa­kistan is an independent institution as visualized by the founding fathers that in the State of Pa­kistan ‘independence of judiciary shall be ful­ly secured’. With such an objective in view, Ar­ticle 191 was incorpo­rated and the Supreme Court was kept out of the law-making authority of the Parliament,” the pres­ident cited another as­pect. The fourth aspect said that the competence of the Parliament to make laws stemmed from the Constitution itself. 

Article 70 related to ‘in­troduction and passing of Bills’ with respect to any matter in the Federal Leg­islative List – enumerated in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. 

Followed and further affirmed were the pro­visions of Article 142(a) that Parliament could make laws ‘with respect to any matter in the Fed­eral Legislative List’. 

Entry 55 of Part I of Fourth Schedule while empowering the Parlia­ment to make laws in re­spect of the ‘jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Supreme Court’ especially excluded the Supreme Court. 

“Thus, the Bill prima-fa­cie travels beyond the competence of the Parlia­ment and can be assailed as a colourable legisla­tion,” it was added.

The constitution con­ferred the Supreme Court with Appellate Jurisdic­tion (Articles 185 – 212), Advisory (Article 186), Review (Article 186) and Original Jurisdiction (Ar­ticle 184). Article 184(3), the focus of the Bill relat­ed to the original juris­diction of the Court – pro­viding for the mode and manner for invoking it and providing Appeal. 

“The idea may be laud­able but can such a pur­pose be achieved without amending the provisions of relevant Articles of the Constitution – established law is that the provisions of the Constitution can­not be amended by an or­dinary law as the Con­stitution is a higher law – father of laws – a Consti­tution is not an ordinary law, but rather an em­bodiment of fundamental principles, higher law, and law above other laws,” the president observed.