Justice (retd) Shaiq Usmani has said that the verdict of the Supreme Court on Practice and Procedure Act will end its interference in political matters under Section (184)(3) of the Constitution.
“I do not think there will ever be any case of the Section (184)(3). Till now, the chief justice would take a case of his liking and take action on it. The use of the power under the section will now be minimised,” he told Asma Shirazi on Rubaroo.
For him, the apex court will likely only take up cases of extreme prejudicial to human rights.
Barrister Gohar Khan said that there was a misconception in the country that the chief justice acted like a king who unilaterally took decisions over taking up cases.
“Whenever CJP takes a suo moto notice, he then puts the case in front of a bench which may comprise three, five, or more judges. There have been instances when the Supreme Court constituted a larger bench to review a suo moto notice,” he added.
Khan called for similar legislation for the high court of the country, to take powers from the chief justice to unilaterally constitute benches.
Responding to question regarding a relief for Nawaz Sharif, he said that Sharif is currently convicted as his appeals were rejected and he did not return in the time frame that was given to him.
“So whenever he returns, according to the law, he has to go back to jail. The crime Sharif is convicted in, is of the federal government. It is required by the law that he is arrested wherever he lands,” he added.
PPP’s Faisal Karim Kundi also appreciated the apex court’s verdict, saying that the Supreme Court has endorsed the supremacy of the Parliament.
“Now, there will be a collective wisdom instead of a one-man show in the Supreme Court. It is a good step for the future,” he added.
For Kundi, Sharif may not return to the country if he fails to secure a pre-arrest bail from the courts.
PML-N’s Malik Ahmad Khan said that the verdict on the Practice and Procedure Act acknowledged the Parliament’s right to legislation, which was a good step forward.
“The interpretation of Constitutional articles is up to the Supreme Court as being the final court of the country,” he added.
