ISLAMABAD (NNI): Parliamentary leaders of the parties, part of majority alliance in the Senate, on Sunday expressed their disappointment over the annulment of Review of Judgments and Orders Act, 2023 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
They said that the principle of separation of powers was clearly defined in the constitution, and that legislation was the sole prerogative of the parliament.
They said declaring the Act null and void by the SC was unfortunate, and that the apex court should refrain from interfering in the affairs of the parliament. Yesterday, Senator Irfan Siddiqui had submitted an adjournment motion to the Senate on the annulment of the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act 2023 by the Supreme Court.
The adjournment motion says that there is a clear impression in the decision that the Supreme Court Rules are above the power of Parliament to legislate. Depriving a person of the right to appeal is killing the demands of justice, the adjournment says adding that the SC judgement is an open insult to the Parliament, a curtailment of the power of the Parliament to legislate and a strike at the constitutional right to a fair trial. The motion states that throwing away the law passed by 442-member parliament by three judges is an insult to democracy.
The motion has been tabled in the Senate for immediate consideration of the situation arising out of the annulment decision by the Supreme Court. The motion was filed today in the notice branch of the Senate via e-mail under Rule 87 of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure.
In the adjournment motion based on seven points, it is said that the three-member bench of the Supreme Court has issued a decision declaring the law passed by both the houses of the Parliament and ratified by the President of Pakistan invalid, which should be considered immediately. The main purpose of this Act of Parliament is to ensure the right of “fair trial” under Article 10-A of the Constitution and the requirements of justice under various other Articles to give the right of appeal to those persons who have been convicted by the Supreme Court on suo motu notice (184-3).
Senator Irfan Siddiqui explained in the adjournment motion that a person convicted by the Sessions Court has the right to two appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court, while in the case of punishment under 184-3, the first decision of the Supreme Court is considered last and final which is against the basic human rights and justice requirements.
In the adjournment motion, it has been stated that the decision has given a clear impression that the rules made by the Supreme Court in 1980 (Rules), are above the Parliament’s power of legislation. It means that the SC Rules are above the Rules made by the Majlis-e-Shura (Parliament). Senator Irfan Siddiqui has said in the adjournment motion that depriving a person of the right to appeal is killing the demands of justice.
The court ruling said that in 1973, the constitution framers did not provide for the right of appeal under Article 184-3. He said that the wise 1973 Constitution framers would not have imagined that there would be a time when the scope of 184-3 would be expanded without limit. Under this, a citizen can be severely punished with disqualification from politics for life and he will not have the right to appeal. If the framers of the Constitution had realized this indiscriminate and unfair use of discretion, they would probably have scrapped this provision or given the right to appeal.
It has been said in the adjournment motion that reserving the decision for 53 days and pronouncing it two days after the dissolution of the assembly by the Supreme Court, is an act done in not good faith.
Senator Irfan Siddiqui said that this decision is an open insult to the Parliament. It curtails the power of Parliament to legislate and strikes at the constitutional right to a fair trial. This decision has raised questions on the honour and respect of the Parliament. It is also an insult to democracy for three judges to overturn the law of the 442-member Parliament.
Siddiqui has demanded that the Senate consider this serious issue and take up this matter of immediate importance for necessary action.
Senators dismayed at annulment of Review of Judgments and Orders Act
