In a pivotal legal session at the Supreme Court, the 2023 Practice and Procedure Act faced scrutiny, with MQM’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui presenting arguments amid a series of probing questions from Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Ajaz ul Hassan, and Justice Manzoor Aktar. During the proceedings, Chief Justice Faiz Issa intervened, creating a tense atmosphere in the courtroom when he attempted to halt Justice Manzoor Aktar from posing further questions to the lawyer until the completion of Siddiqui’s argument.
The exchange revolved around the interpretation of Article 191, a contentious point within the Act. Siddiqui argued that his client, the MQM, was not aligned with any party mentioned in the case and had appeared in response to the court’s notice. The core issue under discussion was whether the Supreme Court could alter the legislation outlined in the Practice and Procedure Act, potentially impacting the court’s autonomy.
Justice Ayesha Malik delved into the nuances of Article 191, specifically focusing on the term “لا” (no) in Urdu, questioning its significance in the legislative context. Siddiqui contended that there was confusion surrounding the meaning of “لا” in Article 191, suggesting that it might refer to parliamentary limitations on Supreme Court rules. Justice Ayesha Malik inquired whether “لا” indicated a restriction on the Parliament’s ability to interfere with the Supreme Court’s rules, to which Siddiqui responded affirmatively.
Amidst the legal debate, Justice Ajaz ul Hassan sought to clarify the separation of powers and whether legislative entries provided parliamentary oversight of Supreme Court proceedings. Justice Manzoor Aktar highlighted the potential impact of the Act on the Supreme Court’s freedom, emphasizing the importance of understanding the Act’s implications thoroughly.
Faisal Siddiqui maintained his stance, asserting that the Act did not encroach on the internal affairs of the Supreme Court. He argued that “لا” and “subject to” could be interpreted separately, contending that the legislature could not intrude on the judiciary’s independence.
The courtroom drama escalated when Chief Justice Faiz Issa interrupted, instructing Siddiqui to focus solely on presenting his arguments without addressing the questions posed. Siddiqui’s response, met with a smile, led to a brief exchange between him and Chief Justice Faiz Issa, highlighting the tension surrounding the case.
In the midst of legal wrangling, the hearing showcased a clash of interpretations and a significant debate about the Act’s potential influence on the Supreme Court’s authority. The session left the courtroom abuzz with speculation, underlining the gravity of the legal battle over the Practice and Procedure Act’s implications on the country’s judicial landscape.
