The full bench of the honourable Supreme Court has resumed hearing of a set of petitions challenging the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 with the proceedings going live on TV channels. The 14-judge SC bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa heard the case relating to the powers and jurisdiction of the apex court on vital issues including the power of suo moto notice that had been the most lucrative and highly dumbeet authority of the top judge in the past years. Meanwhile, the full bench also mull over the question that whether the Chief Judge authority to form benches comprising judges of his own choice was contradictory to the judicial laws or had ever undermined the impartiality of judicial system in the past when a few faces became a symbol of the important benches and their well defined verdicts while other judges complained about the dissociation of the Chief Judge. The full bench would also deliberate on the question that whether the recently approved Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 has put a bar on freedom and autonomy of the apex court or it only paused the hegemony of the top judge, resist group politics, like or dislike among the judges and blocked politically motivated advertisement of the judges.
Over the decades, Pakistan Judicial System fell prey to certain institutional and social biases including catelization of specific families, corruption and political affiliation that adjudicators often carried forward from their lawyership or low cadre service. Meanwhile, the suo moto power particularly in political issues has brought the Chief Justice at par with President and the Army Chief in respect of their powers under article 58 (2)B or Army Act clauses on military law respectively. The PDM government has attempted to contain the judiciary in its pure judicial role for dispensation of justice to the public instead of the power broker role that largely politicized the apex court and polarized the senior judges. Over the years, Pakistani institutions have vigorously rescued their institutional interests without caring about their primary role and responsibility. In the current scenario, the adjudicators themselves have to decide whether they should sacrifice their ego in the larger interest of the nation/public through salient delivery of justice or continue with their previous role with flashy headlines and news breaking stories in the media. That surely advertises the judges but does not provide relief to the public or petitioners.
