With the President’s refusal to sign the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill, the government took a big decision
Islamabad: After refusing the signature of President Arif Alvi, the government has decided to approve the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill through a joint session of Parliament.
According to the details, after President Arif Alvi refused to sign the Supreme Court Practice and Procedural Bill, the bill has been received by the Parliament with objections.
After which it has been decided to approve the bill by the joint session of the Parliament on Monday, in this regard a joint session of the Parliament has been called at 2 o’clock on the day.
After being approved by the Parliament, the bill will be sent to the President for signature, if the President does not sign it within 10 days, the bill will automatically become law.
It should be remembered that the President sent the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill back to the Parliament for revision and declared the government bill beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament.
Arif Alvi wrote that it is appropriate to return this bill for reconsideration for scrutiny, constitutional provisions cannot be amended through general legislation.
President Arif Alvi said that tampering with the examined rules could be tantamount to interfering with the internal proceedings of the court, autonomy, and freedom. The jurisdiction, power, and role of the three pillars of the state are defined by the constitution itself, the constitution is the supreme law but the father of all laws, the constitutional provisions cannot be amended by a general enactment.
President Arif Alvi took the stand that in Badi Nizar the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill is beyond the authority of the Parliament, the Constitution is not a general law, it is an embodiment of the law above the fundamental principles and other laws.
“According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate, advisory, review, and preliminary hearing powers,” he said. If there is not enough legislation, the law may be contested in court.” It is reasonable to send the law back for clarification and review.
The President raised the question that this idea may be laudable but can this objective be achieved without amending the provisions of the Constitution? According to the argument, the Supreme Court was “kept out of the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament under Article 191.”
He further said that the Supreme Court Rules 1980 are being implemented since 1980. Tampering with the examined rules can amount to interfering with the internal functioning, autonomy, and independence of the court. The Constitution itself establishes the authority, responsibility, and function of the three pillars of the state.
Comments
Post a Comment