On 9 October, petitions against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 were heard in front of a full court consisting of 15-member bench, led by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, in a live broadcast. The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, which limits the Chief Justice's discretionary powers, was passed by the parliament with the best of intentions, according to CJP Isa. Additionally, he firmly believed that the absence of a two-thirds majority should not prevent the parliament from taking positive action. The bill was challenged as unconstitutional by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and others, including Raja Aamir Khan, Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain, and Advocate Muhammad Shafay Munir. The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 was passed by the previous coalition government with the intention of limiting the Chief Justice of Pakistan's (CJP) ability to exercise Suo Moto jurisdiction and instituting a three-member committee, led by the CJP and two of the most senior judges on the top court, to establish benches.

Minutes from the Supreme Court hearing
While the case was being heard, the CJP Isa said, "We should respect the Parliament for enacting a law with good intentions." The CJP questioned whether a person with medical knowledge should be prohibited from treating a patient who is dying just because they are not a doctor. The Supreme Court alone has the authority to amend its rules, according to Justice Ijazul Ahsen, who noted that neither Parliament nor any other body can enact laws regarding the SC. According to the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court has the authority to establish norms governing its practice and procedure, but if it strays beyond those bounds, someone should alert the court to stay within its purview. However, Justice Ijazul Ahsen pointed out that the Supreme Court has previously been advised by the constitution to make decisions in conformity with the law and the Constitution.

Jamaat-e-Islami and JUI-F embraced the PML-Q's arguments and backed the measure during the hearing. President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Abid S. Zuberi, asserted that the Parliament lacked authority to control the any procedures of the Supreme Court. The petitioner who opposing the changes to the SC law cited US court judgement as precedent, which angered the CJP, Justice Isa said: "At a minimum, cite the US Supreme Court's ruling. The CJP said after Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Zuberi cited a judgment to support his legal arguments that "our standards have fallen so low that we are now citing a judgment of a New Jersey court." CJP Isa continued, This is not even a decision." The hearing discoursed heavily on the timely viability of Article 184 (3), which looks into the laws that violate fundamental rights. Justice Isa questioned Zuberi, “Can Parliament not legislate for fundamental rights?” Justice Minallah further inquired with Zuberi that if the Court hinders access to justice, will the parliament have the jurisdiction to intervene? The court dismissed Zuberi stating: “You have failed to argue the admissibility of this case.”

What is Practice and Procedure Act 2023?
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act of 2023 rules that if a court wants to invoke suo moto a committee of three senior judges would be formed to establish benches. Additionally, it aims to advance the rule of law, the right to access justice, and the right to a fair trial. The measure emphasizes transparency in the supreme court's proceedings and will grant appeal rights. According to the Act's provisions on the composition of benches, each case, matter, or appeal before the Supreme Court would be heard and decided by a bench chosen by a committee made up of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the two most senior judges. It further stated that a majority vote would be required for committee decisions. According to the Act, any subject involving the application of Article 184(3) would first be presented to the committee before the top court's original jurisdiction could be exercised. According to the Act, the committee would assemble a bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court for cases requiring the interpretation of the Constitution. Owing to the Act, appeals for any judgment rendered by an apex court bench exercising its authority under Article 184(3) must be made to a bigger SC bench within 30 days after the panel's ruling.

What are the contentions?
Raja Amer Khan's petitioner, Khawaja Tariq Raheem, asked the court to deem the act illegal because parliament cannot amend the fundamental provisions of Article 184 (3) through a regular law or interfere in any way with the Supreme Court's rules (1980 Rules), which are supported by the Constitution. Advocate Raheem argued that although the preamble or the Objectives Resolution specify checks and balances in the Constitution, even in situations where parliament amends the Constitution, parliament may not be supreme. The petitioner further argued that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3), as well as Article 199's jurisdiction and recourse to the high courts, would not be sufficient and effective means of preventing legislative intrusions into the judicial system. In his opening remarks, attorney Adnan Khan, who was defending petitioner Amir Sadiq, rejected the Parliament's authority to enact SC rules. "The Constitution's framers purposely did not give Parliament the power to alter the Supreme Court's rules," he claimed. Khan remarked that the Parliament has eliminated the chief justice's position through the SC bill.

References
Nasir Iqbal, “Lack of two-thirds majority doesn’t cripple parliament: CJP,” Dawn, 10 October 2023
Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui and Maryam Nawaz, “Can parliament correct CJP's mistake?': CJP Isa asks SCBA president”, The News International, 10 October 2023
Sohail Khan, “Parliament passed SC law with ‘good intentions’: CJP,” The News International, 10 October 2023