Apex court releases verdict saying the Act does not undermine SC rather it ensures enforcement of basic rights, creates greater independence for judiciary n The Constitution does not grant power to CJP to decide cases unilaterally and arbitrarily.

ISLAMABAD  -  The Supreme Court yesterday released its detailed judgment on the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure Act), 2023 maintaining that the legislation has strengthened the judi­ciary and created great­er independence.

“The Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure Act), 2023 does not in any manner violate the Constitution, it does not undermine the Su­preme Court, nor does it compromise the in­dependence of the ju­diciary. In effect, it does the very opposite in ensuring the enforce­ment of Fundamental Rights, strengthening the Judiciary and cre­ating greater indepen­dence therein,” says the majority judgment, au­thored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and endorsed by nine other judges.

It is to be mentioned here that on October 11, the apex court by a ma­jority 10-5 had declared the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure Act 2023) as valid.”

The detailed judg­ment maintained that, “The Constitution em­powers Parliament to legislate with regard to making the practice and procedure of the Su­preme Court as it spe­cifically stipulated in Article 191. Parliament enacted the Act which does not in any man­ner infringe any of the Fundamental Rights, rather facilitates their enforcement. The Act also grants an appeal to one who is aggrieved by a decision of the Su­preme Court which is passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.”

The judgment also said, “A standard good worldwide practice and the Injunctions of Islam, require that an appeal be provided and when two interpretations are possible, the one that conforms with the In­junctions of Islam shall be adopted.

“Article 175(2) of the Constitution envisages the conferment of juris­diction. A larger Bench of the Supreme Court has been conferred with this additional jurisdic­tion of appeal which fully accords with the Constitution.”

The judgment noted, “We have very carefully considered each and every provision of the Act, and are of the view that it has fa­cilitated access to justice, instilled transparency, made the realiza­tion of Fundamental Rights more effective and the Supreme Court more independent. The office of the Chief Justice has also been strengthened as there is an ele­ment of continuity when consul­tation takes place with the two most senior Judges. The measures taken in the Act ensure judicial independence, and the Supreme Court has been made to better serve the people; we endorse the following definition of judicial in­dependence.”

It further maintained that the “Su­preme Court comprises the Chief Justice and all the Judges of the Su­preme Court. The Constitution does not grant power to the chief Justice to decide cases unilaterally and ar­bitrarily. The Chief Justice cannot substitute his wisdom with that of the Constitution. Nor can the Chief Justice’s opinion prevail over that of the Judges of the Supreme Court. And, the term ‘Master of the Roster’ is not mentioned in the Constitu­tion, in any law or even in the Rules, let alone stating therein that the Chief Justice, is the Master of the Roster and empowered to act com­pletely in his discretion.

The verdict also says, the word master is offensive in a constitu­tional dispensation founded on de­mocracy. Master also connotes ser­vitude, the extreme form of which is slavery which is prohibited by the Constitution. Islam establish­es the principle of equality, and the Constitution does not permit trans­gressing the Injunctions of Islam, the State religion of Pakistan. The opening words of the Constitution are the most beautiful names of the Creator, Ar-Rahman (the most Be­neficent) and Ar-Rahim (the most Merciful). It proceeds by recognis­ing that, “sovereignty over the en­tire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone” and that the exercise of authority is a sacred trust”.

“The only servitude the Constitu­tion (and Islam) envisages is to the Creator,” it adds.

The judgment maintained that, “Servitude also negates consulta­tion. The Holy Qur’an mandates, “Do that which is in agreement amongst the people”. Qur’anic ex­egetes are unanimous in the inter­pretation of this verse, and say that consultation is obligatory in re­spect of all matters pertaining to more than one person. Because: (a) no one should impose their will on others, (b) imposing one’s will on others either means that one does not give importance to others or that one deems oneself to be more intelligent, both of which are moral­ly reprehensible and (c) deciding an issue that pertains to the people is a serious thing and one should fear Allah. And the following principles may be derived from the said verse: (1) all requisite information be pro­vided, (2) appointments should not be made on the basis of fear or fa­vour, (3) leaders should seek ad­vice from advisors, (4) advisors must give their honest and well-considered opinion and (5) matters should preferably be resolved con­sensually, failing which through ma­jority opinion.”