ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Registrar’s Office, on Thursday, returned a petition that challenged Constitutional Package, aims to amend various provisions to the 1973 Constitution, saying hypothetical questions are posed in it. Assistant Registrar Civil-II raised eight objections to the petition, filed by former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Abid Shahid Zuberi and five members of Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) on September 16 under Article 184(3) of Constitution.
The registrar’s office objections include; that the petition has been filed under Article 184(3) of the constitution to challenge a document which has not yet attained the status of a law and it is stated to be a “proposed law”, not yet introduced in the parliament.
It is the members of the National Assembly and the Senate who may pass a bill, if and when presented. However, they are not arrayed as parties. The Federation, the provinces, the principal secretaries to the prime minister and the president who are listed as respondents are not members of the Parliament.
Proposed ‘Constitutional package’: SC requested to reassign petition
The respondents No 9 and 10 cannot be arrayed as parties in view of Article 248 of the Constitution. That under the constitution the power to make laws vests in the Legislature and the same cannot be curtailed before a law is made.
The Registrar’s order further said; “hypothetical questions are posed in the petition”, and that the petitioners have mentioned that they are advocates and members of the PBC, whereas, the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act stipulates that lawyers should not become parties.
It also said that if the petitioners have a grievance and want to be portrayed as members of the PBC then they should first approach their respective bodies, i.e. the SCBA and the PBC for authorising them to represent these bodies.
The Registrar’s Office also objected that the interim order in the case of Raja Amer Khan v The Federation of Pakistan passed in CP 6/2023 (at page 52 of the petition) cannot be considered by this office as a binding decision under Article 189 of the constitution.
The ex-president SCBA and others sought a declaration from the Supreme Court that the separation of powers and independence of judiciary and its powers and functions to enforce the fundamental rights be kindly declared as sacrosanct under the Constitution and beyond the power and competence of the Parliament to withdraw, interfere or tamper with in any manner whatsoever.
The petitioners maintained that the Proposed Amendment Bill is a grave violation of the independence of the judiciary, the right of access to justice and an attempt to abrogate the 1973 Constitution by destroying the Supreme Court and High Courts.
They have prayed that the proposed amendments be declared ultra vires the Constitution, principle of separation of powers, independence of judiciary and fundamental.
They further requested that to restrain the federal government from tabling the bill, suspend the operation of the proposed amendments, further restrain the same from being assented to if passed by both houses and to set aside the proposed amendments sought to be introduced through the bill.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.