The Supreme Court (SC) directed Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan to submit the record of the parliamentary debate on the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 by Tuesday.

The bill limits the powers of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) in taking suo motu action and constituting benches.

An eight-member bench headed by CJP Umar Ata Bandial presided over the proceedings on Monday as the court resumed hearing petitions challenging the law.

The bench also includes Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyad Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.

Previously, the apex court had “pre-emptively” stopped the enforcement of a bill.

Read Will CJP’s dinner heal SC divisions?

The court had ruled that whether the bill received the president’s assent or it was deemed to have been given, “the act that comes into being shall not have, take or be given any effect (and) not be acted upon in any manner”.

Nonetheless, the bill had become law in April, despite the top court’s orders to stop its enforcement.

In the last hearing, the apex court had sought the record of the parliament’s proceedings with regard to the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, while rejecting requests to form a full court.

Notably, the government maintains serious reservations against the eight-member bench, and earlier in May even urged the SC to reject the petitions challenging the law.

In a separate application, the government had also demanded the formation of a full court to hear the pleas against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, despite its similar request –albeit made informally — being recently turned down by the SC.

During the proceedings today, AGP Awan reiterated the government’s request to form a full court.

Additionally, the PML-N also filed a similar petition through advocate Salahuddin Ahmed.

In its application, the PML-N has submitted that in addition to being a matter of great significance for a number of reasons, “it is also the first time in the history of Pakistan that an Act of Parliament has been restrained through interim order from coming into effect”.

“To lastingly settle the law in relation to these complex issues, the collective wisdom of all the judges of this Court is necessary,” the petition argued.

AGP Awan further argued that “matters concerning judicial independence and rules should be heard by the full court”.

“The rules of the SC were created by the full court and they can be amended also by a full court,” he stressed.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan however remarked that “the question is of legislative powers, not of amending the rules.

“Cases concerning legislative powers are heard routinely by various benches,” he said

Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that “many cases are first of their kind”, implying that this was not reason enough to constitute a full bench.

“Does the government wish to take advantage of the full court? Does the government want the internal disagreements of the court to come out?” she questioned, noting that “every case is important. Who is to decide which one of those should be heard by a full court and which ones should not?”

She then went on to question whether “every case of judicial independence was heard by a full court”, to which the AGP responded in the negative but began to argue through the example of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry case.

This attempt was shot down by Justice Mazahar Naqvi who said that that case was of a different nature.

“Are you trying to say that the people have faith in the full court?” said Justice Malik, “How could the court regulate its proceedings on the wishes of the petitioner?”

Justice Muneeb Akhtar also observed that the full court only has the power to make rules in administrative matters. “If a case concerning the interpretation of rules comes before a three-judge bench, should it also be heard by the full court?” he retorted.

AGP Awan said that in the present case, the legislative authority is being challenged.

Justice Malik said that your logic is incomprehensible, the decision of the full court will be good and the decision of the 3-member bench will be bad.

At one point, CJP Bandial asked the AGP if he had submitted a parliamentary record of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure Bill) 2023. To this, the court was informed that the record of the parliamentary proceedings is expected by available by tomorrow as Speaker’s office has been contacted both formally and informally.

Presenting the PML-N’s case, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed said that the rules of the SC do not structure the power of the CJ to form a bench. He also objected to the bench’s constitution in the present case.

Meanwhile, Justice Ahsan remarked that “you want the court to decide which cases will be heard by which bench. If you open this Pandora’s box, full court requests will flood the courts.”

Later, after hearing the arguments, CJ Bandial ordered AGP Awan to provide the records of the proceedings of the parliament and the Standing Committee and postponed further hearings of the judicial reforms bill for an indefinite period.