Shehbaz Sharif, the prime minister, charges the supreme court with fomenting “political instability” as the government introduces a measure in the National Assembly.
Pakistan’s Islamabad – Pakistan, which has been mired in another political crisis for months with no indication of relief, has now experienced a new fundamental crisis.
The government introduced a measure on Tuesday in the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, to curtail the Supreme Court’s authority because, according to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, it was causing “political instability” in the nation.
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, was passed as a result of the top court’s “suo motu” notification that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had postponed provincial elections in Punjab, the province with the highest population.
Suo motu refers to when a court initiates proceedings on its own initiative after taking cognizance of an issue it determines to be of public concern.
All you need to know is this:
What action did the government take?
A motion condemning the Supreme Court of “judicial activism” and requesting its “non-interference” in issues pertaining to the ECP was adopted by the National Assembly on Tuesday.
The motion stated that “this house believes that the primary cause of political instability is an unnecessary interference of the judiciary in the political matters.”
In order to change the laws governing the top court’s conduct, a draught bill introduced in parliament proposes the creation of a three-person commission with the chief justice as its chairperson to hear suo motu cases.
What caused the government-court conflict?
Imran Khan’s ouster from office as prime minister by a legislative vote of confidence in April of last year served as the catalyst for the conflict.
Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, started a nationwide campaign to demand early elections for the nation’s legislature, which are currently planned for later this year.
The 72-year-old cricketing legend-turned-politician chose to dissolve the provincial assemblies in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in January after the government refused his proposal.
Given that Pakistan traditionally conducts both provincial and national elections at the same time, the action was part of Khan’s effort to push the elections.
However, the constitution of Pakistan mandates that polls be conducted 90 days after a legislative body is dissolved.
But when the ECP failed to release an election timetable, a deadlock resulted, causing President Arif Alvi, a supporter of Khan’s PTI, to unilaterally set April 9 as the election date in the two provinces.
Three days later, on February 23, Pakistan’s Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial chose to take a suo motu notice of the matter and convene a hearing on his own as onlookers questioned the validity of Alvi’s statement.
The Supreme Court directed the ECP to uphold its constitutional duty and declare an election timetable for the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on March 1 in a 3-2 decision after four judges recused themselves from the initial nine-judge panel convened to hear the case.
The ECP announced that the election in Punjab region would take place on April 30 two days later, on March 3.
However, the election authority withdrew its timetable last week, claiming that security and budgetary worries made it impossible to conduct the election in April. It declared October 8 as the revised Punjab election date.
The Supreme Court is currently debating whether the ECP’s action is lawful after being contacted by a furious PTI. This compelled the government to introduce a motion that targeted the court directly.
What do law professionals say?
Some legal experts believe that while the government’s suggested amendments to reduce the Supreme Court’s authority are acceptable, the way the parliament is going about doing it is suspect.
“What the government is attempting to do ought to have been done years ago. A constitutional specialist and barrister from Lahore named Abuzar Salman Niazi told Al Jazeera that the manner they are going about it is problematic.
According to Niazi, the majority of the government’s adjustments are statutory revisions, which call for a two-thirds majority in the parliament, which the Sharif administration does not have.
Additionally, he questioned the bill’s timeliness. He declared, “It seems they are only doing this to put pressure on the chief justice of Pakistan.”
“The freedom of the court, which is a fundamental component of our constitution, might be at odds with a straightforward act of parliament regulating the judiciary with regard to procedural and substantive law. If reviewed or contested in court, the judges might invalidate it, the speaker continued.
Salaar Khan, a constitutional expert and lawyer located in Islamabad, told Al Jazeera that he did not think the suggested change would limit the Supreme Court’s authority.
“This measure only concerns electricity restructuring. Taking suo motu notices is presently the single prerogative of the court’s top judge. Since the Supreme Court is defined to include more than just the chief justice, one might contend that the plan seeks to increase the involvement of other judges as well.
Instead of introducing a measure in parliament, Niazi argued that the government ought to have attempted to exert pressure on the court to make the desired adjustments.
The Supreme Court should be changing its own standards, not the government’s proposal to do so. What if the court decides to take up a topic involving parliamentary norms and process tomorrow and begins telling the parliament how to run its business? The Durand Times reported that it would have been preferable to let the Supreme Court modify its own policies.