Clear change in apex court’s approach to public interest cases
Since the elevation of Asif Saeed Khosa as the chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) in January this year, the Supreme Court’s approach to entertaining public interest matters for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 184 (3) of Constitution has visibly changed.
Neither the Chief Justice Khosa has taken any suo motu notice nor entertained any case forwarded by the SC Human Rights Cell, a trend which was at its peak during tenure of his predecessor Saqib Nisar.
The CJP Khosa also does not seek reports from departments concerned on matters of public interest.
The Supreme Court Human Right Cell policy has also apparently changed and it is not entertaining those applications,
in which grievances could be redressed by any other forum.
Pending applications in the cell have already been disposed of.
Now the Supreme Court institution branch raises objections to every constitutional petition.
When the petitioners file appeal against rejection of the petition, a Supreme Court judge hears their appeal in his chamber and passes the appropriate order.
Chief Justice Khosa, in his first speech on January 17, said an effort shall be made – either through a full court meeting or through a judicial exercise – to determine and lay down the scope and parameters of the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the court under Article 184(3).
He had even called the full court to consider amendment in order XXV Supreme Court Rules relating to the exercise of powers under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution as proposed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) last year.
However, consensus among Supreme Court judges had yet to evolve about determination of
suo motu parameters.
Suo motu is Latin for “on its own motion”. In the case of the Supreme Court, it means the court can take action on a matter without having it first being formally brought to its attention.
The matter of the suo motu parameters may be taken up on judicial side soon, sources said.
Lawyer Umer Gilani said that in case of any 184(3) petition filed in the Supreme Court, perhaps the most important question is that of admissibility.
“In my view, this question should be decided by a panel of judges in open court. At present the question of admissibility is decided either by the registrar or by the chief justice in his chambers. This creates an impression of opaqueness and arbitrariness, which is detrimental to the court’s reputation.”
Gilani said that the proper forum for most writs is the high court and direct hearing before the Supreme Court under 184(3) reduces one layer of appeal, which is important for ensuring due process of law.
However, an insider revealed that after two months there will be a visible change in the apex court’s policy for entertaining human rights cases.
“You will see big change in the Supreme Court’s policy to entertain public interest matters in the next couple of months,” said a senior official in the apex court.
Currently, the incumbent chief justice is focusing on improving criminal justice in the country and clear backlog of cases.
Chief Justice Khosa has been successful in his approach and all criminal appeals in the apex court will be decided in next couple of months.