The Lahore High Court has made an important decision as it has deferred the ruling on whether to entertain the petition attacking the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance 2024. CJP Ms. Aalia Neelum, the working person presiding over the matter on this particular day, indeed raised concerns about the legality and purpose of the ordinance in question.
Background of the Case
Legal and political discourse has arisen regarding the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance 2024. The ordinance has come into the spotlight due to the manner and timing of its passage; concerns remain that no legally valid reason justified slotting this ordinance in at such a time without following the normal procedures.
The respondent’s counsel offered that they saw no reasonable need to implement an ordinance when a session of the assembly was on because they stated that this weakens the essence of the parliamentary system.
Courtroom Proceedings: Key Arguments from the Petitioner
At some point in the hearing, a very quick discussion erupted between Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and the petitioner’s LaLawyerShe pressed him to specify why he regards the ordinance as illegal. The LaLawyeretorted by asking what the rationale was for even this ordinance in the first place when a normal situation was already in existence, which did not justify such an issue. Lawyers also stressed that when the ordinance came out, the national assembly was in operation.
The lawyer also stated that after the section was included in the ordinance, a new body was created under the objects of the ordinance. As per the understanding, this actioLawyerged the organizational procedure of redistribution of internal jurisdictional authorities, which previously would all have belonged to the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Federal Government Constitutional Amendment Petition Objection
The federal government’s counsel, in this instance, protested bitterly the petition. The government’s attorney asked whether higher courts, including the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court, would contest such a provision, noting that the high court has already implemented the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance regarding this provision. The LaLawyereferred tos laLawyern time when the sympathised high court had kept its hands off a similar petition, and doubted the ‘s responsiveness Lahore high court’s responsiveness to yet another petition seeking to vacate the order.
Judge reservation order to petitioner’s objection to magistrate’s jurisdiction
The petitioners’ side, in the court’s presence at the ten hearing, received the petitioners’ notice filed by Datan Fabian with regard to the acceptance of the petition. After hearing both parties, the Lahore High Court reserved its judgment on the admissibility of the petition challenging the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance and its advancement for hearing. This saving judgment brings a wait-and-see for all parties on the complex and controversial problem.
As it stands, the ordinance has already elicited discussion on judicial independence and executive encroachment. Suppose the court is inclined to admit the petition. In that case, the petitioners will have more scope to contest the ordinance, taking it to the level of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
On the other hand, if the court turns down the petition, it may deter any other courts from filing further petitions against the same, thus serving the interests of the federal government. Conclusion The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Ordinance 2024 remains the subject of legal battles in Pakistan.
And given the number of courts presently addressing its constitutional validity, the Lahore High Court could prove many predictions wrong if it agrees to the petition’s admissibility. At this time, both members of the legal profession and the ordinary public are looking forward to the court’s order.
