ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Act is facing legal challenges, with petitions filed in both the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court.
In the Supreme Court, Advocate Chaudhry Ehtishamul Haq has petitioned for the ordinance to be declared unconstitutional, arguing that its promulgation undermines parliamentary democracy. He requests that all actions taken under the ordinance be nullified and has urged the court to suspend it pending a decision, referencing a prior Supreme Court ruling that ordinances should only be issued in emergencies.
Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court is considering a similar challenge against the Amendment Act. After hearing arguments, Justice Yousuf Ali Syed reserved the court’s decision, expected to be issued today. Advocate Ibrahim Saifuddin contended that the amendment constitutes a direct attack on the judiciary. Justice Syed pointed out that the Supreme Court has already begun implementing the amended Act, with Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa issuing a formal notification.
On September 20, the Law Ministry officially enacted the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance 2024, following the president’s approval. This new law requires that reasons of public interest be presented before any hearings under Article 184.
Significantly, the ordinance expands the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s powers in case assignments. A new panel, consisting of the Chief Justice, the senior-most judge, and an appointee of the Chief Justice, will now decide case assignments. Under the amended law, all trials will be recorded and transcriptions prepared, with the public having access to these records.
Previously, a three-member committee of the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges handled case assignments, but the new framework prioritizes public importance and fundamental human rights in determining case hearings.
Additionally, sub-clause 2 of Section 5 of the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, which limited the right of appeal in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments case, has been abolished.
Concerns have also been raised by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah regarding the recent formation of a new ordinance committee. In a letter to the SC Practice and Procedure Committee, he stated that the previous committee could have continued its work pending a full court review. He questioned the need for a new committee so soon after the ordinance’s enactment and expressed his refusal to participate in meetings unless the former committee was reinstated.
