The majority by which the Supreme Court Practices and Procedure Act was upheld by the Supreme Court was 10-5, which indicated that the present Chief Justice enjoys the sort of support of his court that would enable him to push through a judicial agenda which would restore the image of the Court, something that his predecessor, Mr Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was apparently not very careful of. Indeed, it was Mr Justice Bandial’s selection of cases for suo motu interventions, and the formation of what were called ‘like-minded’ benches to hear them, which were tilted in the favour of a particular political party, that led to the passage of the impugned statute, as Parliament attended to correct the excesses of the past. It was one of the grounds of objection to the Act, that its passage represented Parliament attempting to interfere in the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court verdict indicated that the Act did not represent such interference.
Apart from placing the power of selecting cases for suo motu powers, and bench formation, in the hands of a committee, instead of in the hands of the Chief Justice alone, the Supreme Court also ruled that there would lie one appeal to verdicts, something which did not previously exist. However, the Court decided 8-7 against allowing retrospective appeals, thus closing the door on Mian Nawaz Sharif’s and Jehangir Tareen’s lifetime disqualifications. Previous decisions were treated as past and closed transactions. How exactly this will pan out, but the case set another very useful precedent that deserves to be repeated, and that is that the proceedings were shown live on television, allowing the public to see what went on behind the forbidding exterior of the Supreme Court building.
It will be worth seeing how far the judgement lasts. It should be noted that the five judges dissenting from the decision were not just those who supported Mr Justice Bandial in favouring a particular party, but also those with legitimate expectancy of becoming Chief Justice. In short, while the present holder of the office was anxious to divest himself of powers, his successors did not seem at all eager. It is to be hoped that this verdict is also treated as a past and closed transaction, and future Chief Justices accept that there are limits to their power.
