ISLAMABAD    -    The Supreme Court of Pakistan Mon­day directed the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) to submit the record of the parliamentary debate on the Supreme Court (Practice and Proce­dure) Bill 2023 by Tuesday (today).

An eight-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mu­hammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed conducted hearing of the petitions against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023.

The bench on April 13 had de­clared, “The moment the Bill, 2023 receives the assent of the President or it is deemed that such assent has been given, then from that very mo­ment onwards and till further orders, the Act that comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect nor be acted upon in any manner.”

Despite the apex court’s orders to stop its enforcement, the bill had be­come law on April 21, 23.

In a separate application, the gov­ernment had also demanded the for­mation of a full court to hear the pleas against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, despite its similar request - albeit made infor­mally - being recently turned down by the SC. During the hearings, AGP Mansoor Awan reiterated the gov­ernment’s request to form a full court. Additionally, the PML-N has also filed a similar petition through advocate Salahuddin Ahmed.

In its application, the PML-N has submitted that in addition to being a matter of great signif­icance for a number of rea­sons, “it is also the first time in the history of Pakistan that an Act of Parliament has been re­strained through interim order from coming into effect.”

“To lastingly settle the law in relation to these complex is­sues, the collective wisdom of all the judges of this Court is necessary,” the petition argued.

AGP Awan argued that “mat­ters concerning judicial inde­pendence and rules should be heard by the full court.” “The rules of the SC were created by the full court and they can be amended also by a full court,” he stressed.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan, how­ever, remarked that the ques­tion is of legislative powers, not of amending the rules. “Cases concerning legislative powers are heard routinely by various benches, he said

Justice Ayesha Malik re­marked that “many cases are first of their kind,” implying that this was not reason enough to constitute a full bench. She asked that does the govern­ment wish to take advantage of the full court? Does the gov­ernment want the internal dis­agreements of the court to come out? she questioned, noting that “every case is important. Who is to decide which one of those should be heard by a full court and which ones should not?”

She then went on to question whether “every case of judicial independence was heard by a full court,” to which the AGP re­sponded in the negative but be­gan to argue through the exam­ple of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry case.

Justice Mazahir Naqvi said the case was of a different na­ture. “Are you trying to say that the people have faith in the full court?” said Justice Malik. She added that how could the court regulate its proceedings on the wishes of the petitioner?

Justice Muneeb Akhtar also observed that the full court only has the power to make rules in administrative matters. “If a case concerning the interpre­tation of rules comes before a three-member bench, should it also be heard by the full court?” he retorted.

The attorney general said that in the present case, the legis­lative authority is being chal­lenged.

Justice Ayesha said your log­ic is incomprehensible, the de­cision of the full court will be good and the decision of the 3-member bench will be bad.

At one point, CJP Bandial asked from the AGP that if he had submitted a parliamenta­ry record of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure Bill) 2023. To this, the court was in­formed that the record of the parliamentary proceedings is expected to be available by to­morrow as Speaker’s office has been contacted both formally and informally.

Presenting the PML-N’s case, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed said that the rules of the SC do not structure the power of the CJ to form a bench. He also ob­jected to the bench’s constitu­tion in the present case.

The PML-N’s lawyer argued that the implementation of a law had been barred by the court for the very first time. He further said that pleas were routinely filed for the formation of a full court, adding that a full court was constituted to hear the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case.

Justice Ahsan said that the case concerning Justice Isa was sent to the CJP, adding that the top judge himself did not hear the case.

Then, the CJP remarked that the Iftikhar Chaudhry and Jus­tice Isa cases were based on presidential references. “The SC is on trial when allegations are made against judges. A full court was constituted due to its serious nature,” he said.

Justice Akhtar then said that the law made by Parliament talked about a five-member bench hearing of the case. “How can the PML-N file a plea for the petition of a full court?” he asked.

Justice Ijaz Ahsan remarked that “you want the court to de­cide which cases will be heard by which bench. If you open this Pandora’s box, full court re­quests will flood the courts.” Af­ter hearing the arguments, CJ Bandial ordered AGP Awan to provide the records of the pro­ceedings of the parliament and the Standing Committee and postponed further hearings of the judicial reforms bill for an indefinite.