To say that the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Chief Minister election in the Punjab Assembly has led to wide-ranging legal discourse would be an understatement. A definitive legal question that this whole fiasco has reignited is that of the circumstances in which a full bench of the Supreme Court may be constituted, due to the government’s plea for a larger bench to hear their case.
From a legal standpoint, there is no legislation that necessitates a larger bench to be constituted about matters of public importance, and the discretion as to when that may happen rests entirely with the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Supreme Court Rules state that every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard and disposed of by a bench consisting of not less than three judges to be nominated by the Chief Justice. However, apart from legislation, the question of a larger bench has arisen repeatedly in previous years, as more and more political cases have gone to the courts regarding inviolable rights enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of justice for all.
It is true that perhaps a larger bench may have assuaged the government’s implied stance that the decision was biased against them; after all, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. However, the Supreme Court had legitimate concerns to be cautious in not wanting to set any binding precedents. It is also true that time was of the essence in this case, and it would be a disservice to the country if this case, and consequentially the leadership of Punjab, had been left pending for months during the process of constituting a larger bench.
Perhaps this debacle is a lesson to political parties that not every legal question has to go to the courts, and questions such as the discretion of the Chief Justice in the constitution of benches is a highly serious issue that requires the deliberation, debate and scholarship of the parliament. In the present scenario, however, the federal government must also take note that as this matter of constitution of benches is a highly consequential issue, any legislation must be passed impartially, without political motive, and by taking on board all stakeholders.
From a legal standpoint, there is no legislation that necessitates a larger bench to be constituted about matters of public importance, and the discretion as to when that may happen rests entirely with the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Supreme Court Rules state that every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard and disposed of by a bench consisting of not less than three judges to be nominated by the Chief Justice. However, apart from legislation, the question of a larger bench has arisen repeatedly in previous years, as more and more political cases have gone to the courts regarding inviolable rights enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of justice for all.
It is true that perhaps a larger bench may have assuaged the government’s implied stance that the decision was biased against them; after all, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. However, the Supreme Court had legitimate concerns to be cautious in not wanting to set any binding precedents. It is also true that time was of the essence in this case, and it would be a disservice to the country if this case, and consequentially the leadership of Punjab, had been left pending for months during the process of constituting a larger bench.
Perhaps this debacle is a lesson to political parties that not every legal question has to go to the courts, and questions such as the discretion of the Chief Justice in the constitution of benches is a highly serious issue that requires the deliberation, debate and scholarship of the parliament. In the present scenario, however, the federal government must also take note that as this matter of constitution of benches is a highly consequential issue, any legislation must be passed impartially, without political motive, and by taking on board all stakeholders.