In Focus
Government hastily passes another set of bills amid opposition
Rohini Reenum

What happened?
On 4 November, the government introduced six amendment bills in the National Assembly which were passed despite opposition. On the same day, the bills were also approved in the Senate. The bills were passed by a simple majority and now await President Asif Ali Zardari’s assent. Further, the government via motions in both houses suspended the rules required to refer the introduced bills to the standing committees. Both the PTI and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) have expressed their opposition to the bill. Some lawyers have also questioned the relevance of the bills, especially those aimed at changes in the judicial system.

What are these amendment bills? What do they aim to do?
The six amendment bills were passed to amend existing laws. Out of the six, three bills were aimed at making changes in the judiciary, and the other three pertained to the armed forces. These six bills were:
First, the Supreme Court Number of Judges (Amendment) Bill, 2024 increased the number of Supreme Court judges from 17 to 34. Second, the Islamabad High Court (Amendment) bill, 2024 raised the number of judges in the Islamabad High Court from nine to 12. Third, the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced in order to incorporate the changes made by the recently passed 26th Amendment, specifically the inclusion of the provision for constitutional benches.

The other three bills, namely, the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill, 2024, the Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Bill, 2024, made changes in the tenure of the three army chiefs and altered their terms of service. The tenure of all three service chiefs (chief of army staff, chief of air staff, and chief of naval staff) has been extended from three to five years. Further, the retirement age of 64 years (for generals, air chief marshals, and admirals) will now not apply to the three service chiefs. Additionally, if these three chiefs are re-appointed or their terms extended, it will be for a period of five years. There was, however, no alteration made in the tenure of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff which is three years.

What is the opposition to these bills?
In an expected move, the PTI has condemned the hasty passage of the bills. Speaking to the media after the National Assembly was adjourned, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan criticized the government for using the parliament as a “rubber-stamp.” He also accused the government of silencing the opposition. He further lamented that these amendments were aimed at tinkering with the independence of the judiciary and pushing the country towards an “authoritarian model.” Additionally, PTI leader Shoaib Shaheen also claimed that the opposition had not been informed of the bill seeking changes to the Pakistan Army Act. Separately, JI Senator Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, also argued that the “the path for legal martial law has been paved in Pakistan.”

Lawyers in their opposition have highlighted that the increase in the number of judges will not help with the pendency of cases as 80 per cent of the pendency is at the district judiciary level and no changes have been made to tackle that load. In this regard, Lawyer Rida Hosain told Dawn “The government’s focus at the moment is to exert control over the SC and the attempt to cover this under the guise of addressing pendency is not convincing.” Barrister Asad Rahim Khan and Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii argued that increasing the number of judges was the next logical step after the government hijacked the judiciary via the 26^th Amendment and that this had nothing to do with the problem of pendency. Jafferii also emphasized that the amendment aimed at increasing the tenure of the chief of army staff is a quintessential example of a “person-specific legislation.”

In a contrary opinion, an editorial in The Nation lauded the swiftness of the passage of the bills and argued that the move will mean that there is now twice the number of judges to hear pending cases. Further, it argued that this also means “double the options of potential members on the eventual Constitutional Bench and a larger number of opinions.” The editorial also criticized the opposition for not being able to provide a concrete reason for their stance. It also pointed out that some details of the bills had been doing rounds on television channels and thus this was not clearly not a surprise that the ruling coalition had sprung. It thus argued that the PML-N was right in taking advantage of the situation and bulldozing through.

References
Abdullah Momand & Umaid Ali, “Govt rushes bills in NA, Senate on strength of Supreme Court judges, 5-year term of armed forces’ chiefs,” Dawn, 4 November 2024
Muhammad Anis, Mumtaz Alvi & Waqar Satti, “Services chiefs to stay for 5 years, SC to have 34 judges,” The News International, 5 November 2024
 “Parliament passes key bills on SC expansion, military chiefs’ tenure extension,” The Express Tribune, 4 November 2024
“PTI rejects newly-approved bills, accuses govt of silencing opposition,” The Express Tribune, 4 November 2024
“Clear Intent,” The Nation, 5 November 2024