Islamabad, Pakistan – A new constitutional crisis has erupted in Pakistan, which has been engulfed for months by a new political crisis that has not seemed to abate.
On Tuesday, the government presented a bill in the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, to limit the powers of the Supreme Court, which Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said was causing “political instability” in the country.
The legislation, dubbed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, came about after the Supreme Court issued a “suo motu” notice from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that the provincial elections in Punjab, the most populous province of the country postponed.
A suo motu is when a court itself takes cognizance of a case that it considers to be in the public interest and initiates proceedings about it.
Here’s everything you need to know:
What has the government done?
The National Assembly on Tuesday passed a resolution accusing the Supreme Court of “legal activism” and demanding it “not interfere” in matters related to the ECP.
“This House believes that unnecessary interference by the judiciary in political affairs is the main cause of political instability,” the resolution said.
The bill presented in parliament aims to amend laws regarding the conduct of the supreme court and proposes the establishment of a three-member panel headed by the chief justice to hear suo motu cases.
What caused the battle between the government and the court?
The genesis of the clash is the removal of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from power by a parliamentary confidence vote last April.
Khan, who heads Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, launched a nationwide campaign to demand immediate national elections, which would otherwise be held later this year.
When the government rejected his demand, the 72-year-old cricket icon turned politician decided to dissolve provincial assemblies in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces in January.
The move was part of Khan’s bid to force the election, as Pakistan historically holds provincial and national elections together.
However, according to the Constitution of Pakistan, elections must be held within 90 days of the dissolution of a legislative assembly.
But a deadlock ensued when the ECP failed to announce an election manifesto, forcing President Arif Alvi, a member of Khan’s PTI, to unilaterally declare April 9 as the election date in the two provinces.
Three days later, if observers doubted the legality of Alvi’s announcement, The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, decided on February 23 to raise the matter on his own initiative and initiated a hearing himself.
After four judges were withdrawn from the original nine judge bench assembled to hear the issue, on March 1 the Supreme Court in a 3-2 verdict ordered the ECP to honor its constitutional obligation and announce an election schedule for the Punjab provinces and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Two days later, on March 3, the ECP said that the vote in Punjab province will take place on April 30.
But the polling station withdrew its schedule last week, saying it was impossible to hold the vote in April due to security and financial concerns. It announced October 8 as the new election date in Punjab.
An irate PTI approached the Supreme Court, which is now debating whether the ECP’s move is legal. That forced the government to file a resolution against the court itself.
What do lawyers say?
Some legal experts believe that while the government’s proposed amendments to reduce the Supreme Court’s powers are welcome, the way parliament is doing it is questionable.
“What the government is trying to do should have been done a long time ago. However, the way they are doing it is problematic,” Abuzar Salman Niazi, a Lahore lawyer and constitutional expert, told Al Jazeera.
Niazi said most of the changes proposed by the government are constitutional amendments, requiring a two-thirds majority in parliament, which the Sharif government lacks.
He also questioned the timing of the bill. “It seems they are only doing this to put pressure on the Chief Justice of Pakistan,” he said.
“A simple act of parliament to regulate the judiciary with regard to procedural and substantive law may conflict with the independence of the judiciary, which is a basic structure of our constitution. The courts can strike it down if it is reviewed or challenged by the court,” he added.
However, Salaar Khan, an Islamabad-based lawyer and constitutional expert, told Al Jazeera that he does not believe the proposed change will curtail the Supreme Court’s powers.
“This bill is only about restructuring power. It is currently the exclusive right of the Chief Justice of the Court to make suo motu notices. You could argue that the proposal is about expanding the role for other justices, as the Supreme Court is defined not only as the chief justice, but also for other justices,” he said.
Niazi said the government should have tried to pressure the court to make the desired changes instead of introducing a bill to parliament.
“The government is proposing to change the rules of the Supreme Court, which is the job of the Supreme Court itself. What if tomorrow the court takes up a question of parliamentary rules and procedure and starts dictating how parliament should run its affairs? It would have been better to let the Supreme Court change its own rules and procedures,” he told Al Jazeera.
