Why does the Shehbaz Sharif government want to limit Supreme Court's authority?
Pakistan's ongoing political crisis, which has lasted for months and shows no indications of ending, has given rise to a new constitutional 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.
Suo motu refers to when a court initiates proceedings on its own initiative after taking cognizance of a matter it determines to be of public concern.
All you need to know is this:
What action did the administration take?
A resolution accusing 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 resolution 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 draft bill introduced in parliament proposes the creation of a three-person panel 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 rejected his demand.
Given that Pakistan traditionally conducts both provincial and national elections at the same time, the action was part of Khan's effort to force the elections.
However, the constitution of Pakistan mandates that elections be conducted 90 days after a legislative assembly is dissolved.
But when the ECP failed to release an election schedule, 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 decided to take a suo motu notice of the matter and convene a hearing on his own as observers questioned the legality of Alvi's statement.
The Supreme Court ordered the ECP to uphold its constitutional duty and declare an election schedule 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 schedule last week, claiming that security and financial concerns 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 approached by a furious PTI. This compelled the government to introduce a motion that targeted the court directly.
How do law professionals feel?
Some legal experts believe that while the government's suggested amendments to reduce the Supreme Court's authority are welcome, the way the parliament is going about doing it is suspect.
A constitutional expert and lawyer 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 constitutional amendments, which call for a two-thirds majority in the parliament, which the Sharif administration does not have.
Salaar Khan, a constitutional expert and lawyer located in Islamabad, told Al Jazeera that he did not think the proposed amendment would limit the Supreme Court's authority.
This measure only concerns power restructuring. Taking suo motu notices is presently the single prerogative of the court's chief justice. Since the Supreme Court is defined to include more than just the chief justice, one might contend that the proposal seeks to increase the involvement of other judges as well.
Instead of introducing a bill 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 rules and process tomorrow and begins telling the parliament how to run its business? The Supreme Court should have been allowed to modify its own policies and processes, he continued.
Comments
Post a Comment