LAHORE/ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court has reserved its judgment on the admissibility of a petition challenging the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Alia Neelam was urged to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, following a petition filed by Muneer Ahmed. The chief justice asked the petitioner to justify why the ordinance should be considered illegal.
Azhar Siddique, the petitioner’s lawyer, argued that there was no emergency justifying the ordinance, especially since parliament was in session at the time. He noted that a new committee was formed after the ordinance was issued, and referenced the earlier introduction of the Practice and Procedure Act.
Siddique explained that previously, all powers rested with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, whereas parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution. He contended that issuing the ordinance while parliament was active rendered it unconstitutional and claimed it was introduced with malicious intent. He emphasized the issue’s public significance, urging the court to accept the petition.
Siddique also highlighted that Pakistan is a democratic nation governed by the Constitution.
However, the federal government’s lawyer challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that such matters should be addressed by the Supreme Court. The lawyer claimed that the Lahore High Court lacks the authority to hear the case and requested the petition’s dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility.
“The case should be filed in the jurisdictional court of Islamabad,” the counsel stated, adding that the ordinance has already been challenged in the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court, where a decision on the matter has been reserved.
The Lahore High Court has now reserved its decision on whether to proceed with the petition.
On Tuesday, the ordinance was challenged in both the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court.
In the Supreme Court, Advocate Chaudhry Ehtishamul Haq submitted a petition seeking to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional, arguing that its promulgation undermines parliamentary democracy.
The petitioner requested that all actions taken under the ordinance be nullified and urged the court to suspend the ordinance until a final ruling is made, citing the Supreme Court’s prior statement that ordinances should only be issued in emergencies.
Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court heard a similar challenge against the amendment. After hearing arguments, Justice Yousuf Ali Syed reserved the decision. During the proceedings, Advocate Ibrahim Saifuddin argued that the amendment was a direct attack on the judiciary.
Justice Syed noted that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, had already begun implementing the amended Act through a formal notification. He questioned the Sindh High Court’s ability to intervene in Supreme Court matters, underscoring the complexity of the case.
