PTI Files Legal Petition Against Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance
Petitions Filed Across Various Courts to Declare Ordinance Unconstitutional
Islamabad-A petition has been submitted by Barrister Gohar Ali Khan on behalf of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), challenging the recently issued presidential ordinance concerning the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act. The PTI has requested that the ordinance be declared unconstitutional and annulled by the court.
In the petition, PTI argues that the presidential ordinance invalidates the Supreme Court’s newly formed Practice and Procedure Committee. The party contends that all decisions made by this committee after the ordinance’s enactment are illegal. PTI is also seeking to suspend the newly established committee until the constitutional petition is addressed. The petition emphasizes that the previous committee should be reinstated and continue to operate until a final decision is made on the matter.
Just a day before the PTI’s petition was submitted, the Lahore High Court reserved its decision on whether to admit a similar petition challenging the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance. This earlier petition was filed by Muneer Ahmed, who also sought to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional.
During the proceedings at the Lahore High Court, Chief Justice Alia Neelam questioned the petitioner’s legal team, asking for specific reasons why the ordinance should be deemed illegal. Advocate Azhar Siddique, representing the petitioner, argued that the ordinance was unwarranted since no emergency situation justified its issuance. He also pointed out that parliament was in session when the ordinance was promulgated, suggesting there was no need to bypass the legislative process. Furthermore, Siddique mentioned that the creation of a new committee following the ordinance’s enactment only added to the controversy, as the initial Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act had already faced opposition.
Power Cut, Stage Seized: PTI Lahore Rally Comes to Abrupt End
In addition to the cases in the Lahore High Court, similar challenges have been filed in both the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court. In the Supreme Court, Advocate Chaudhry Ehtishamul Haq submitted a petition asserting that the ordinance is unconstitutional. His petition contends that the presidential ordinance undermines parliamentary democracy by bypassing the traditional legislative process. He further called for all actions taken under the ordinance to be nullified. Haq’s petition also requests that the ordinance be suspended until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on its validity. He cited an earlier declaration from the Supreme Court, which stressed that ordinances should only be issued in emergencies.
In the Sindh High Court, a similar case challenging the amendment to the Practice and Procedure Act was heard. Justice Yousuf Ali Syed presided over the hearing, and after listening to the arguments, he reserved his decision. During the proceedings, Advocate Ibrahim Saifuddin, representing the petitioner, described the amendment as a direct assault on the judiciary’s independence. He argued that the ordinance undermined the judiciary’s autonomy by giving undue power to other branches of the government.
AJK Minister Vows to Combat Corruption: Anti-Corruption Division Performance Reviewed
Justice Yousuf Ali Syed, while considering the complexities of the case, observed that the Supreme Court itself had already begun implementing the amended Act. This was evident from the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa, issuing a formal notification under the new framework. Justice Syed questioned whether the Sindh High Court had the authority to intervene in the Supreme Court’s internal procedures. He acknowledged the intricate nature of the case, noting that it involved a direct confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of the government.
Throughout the legal challenges across multiple courts, a central issue has emerged: whether the president had the constitutional authority to issue the ordinance, particularly when parliament was actively in session. The petitioners maintain that the ordinance violates the spirit of parliamentary democracy, which requires that legislative changes of this magnitude be debated and approved through the proper legislative channels, not imposed unilaterally by the executive branch.
Moreover, the petitioners in these cases argue that the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Act goes beyond administrative changes and affects the core functions of the judiciary, especially in the selection of judges and the management of court procedures. They contend that the changes imposed by the ordinance infringe upon judicial independence, effectively allowing the executive branch to interfere in judicial matters.
PTI Lawyer Objects to Chief Justice Presiding Over Election Tribunal Case
The broader legal community has weighed in on the controversy, with many expressing concerns about the impact of the ordinance on the separation of powers in Pakistan. Some legal experts believe that the ordinance could set a dangerous precedent by enabling the executive branch to exert greater control over the judiciary, a move that could erode public confidence in the independence of the courts. Others, however, argue that the ordinance was necessary to address inefficiencies in the Supreme Court’s procedures and to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
As the legal battles continue, the fate of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Act remains uncertain. The courts will need to balance the competing interests of judicial independence, executive authority, and the need for procedural reforms within the judiciary. The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive in Pakistan and could reshape the legal landscape in the country.
In the meantime, the legal challenges have drawn widespread attention, with many members of the public and the media closely following the developments. The cases have also sparked debates about the role of the judiciary in Pakistan’s democracy and the proper balance of power between the different branches of government.
The legal challenges to the ordinance reflect broader tensions between the government and the judiciary, tensions that have surfaced in recent years as the executive has sought to implement various reforms to the country’s legal system. These reforms, while aimed at improving efficiency and transparency, have been met with resistance from some quarters of the judiciary, who view them as an attempt to undermine their independence.
As the legal challenges move forward, all eyes will be on the courts to see how they navigate these complex issues and whether they will uphold the ordinance or strike it down as unconstitutional. The outcome of these cases will not only determine the future of the Supreme Court’s practice and procedures but could also shape the broader trajectory of judicial reform in Pakistan for years to come.
Follow us on our social media platforms here: Twitter WHATSAPP CHANNEL FACEBOOK PAGE
