Lahore High Court Reserves Verdict on Petition Against Supreme Court Amendment Ordinance
The Lahore High Court has reserved its decision on the admissibility of a petition challenging the recently promulgated Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance. This comes after a petition was filed by Muneer Ahmed, who argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer, Azhar Siddique, asserted that there was no emergency situation justifying the introduction of the ordinance, especially since Parliament was in session at the time. He argued that the ordinance violated the Constitution, explaining that previously all judicial powers were centralized under the Chief Justice of Pakistan, while Parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution.
Siddique further alleged that the ordinance was introduced with malicious intent and that it was a matter of public interest. He urged the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and accept the petition for further proceedings.
On the other hand, the federal government’s lawyer objected to the Lahore High Court’s jurisdiction over the case. He argued that such constitutional matters should be addressed by the Supreme Court or, at the very least, be heard in the jurisdictional court in Islamabad. He also pointed out that similar petitions challenging the ordinance had already been filed in the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court, both of which had reserved their decisions. The federal counsel requested the Lahore High Court to dismiss the petition as inadmissible.
The petitioner’s counsel countered these objections by emphasizing the importance of the issue, reiterating that Pakistan operates under a democratic system governed by the Constitution, and any changes to the judiciary’s procedures must be made within the bounds of parliamentary law.
In the Supreme Court, a similar petition was filed by Advocate Chaudhry Ehtishamul Haq, who argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional and requested that all actions taken under it be invalidated. Additionally, Haq urged the court to suspend the ordinance until a decision on the matter was reached, citing previous rulings that ordinances should only be enacted in emergency situations.
Similarly, the Sindh High Court heard another challenge to the amendment. Advocate Ibrahim Saifuddin, representing the petitioner, argued that the amendment posed a direct challenge to the judiciary’s independence. Justice Yousuf Ali Syed, who presided over the case, noted that the Supreme Court had already started implementing the amended Act, adding complexity to the situation.
Both the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court have reserved their verdicts on similar petitions, making the outcome of the Lahore High Court’s decision a significant legal matter.
As the Lahore High Court prepares to announce its ruling on the petition’s admissibility, legal experts continue to debate the potential implications of the ordinance on Pakistan’s judicial system.
