A majority of the analysts approve of the top court’s ruling but some fear it could give “unconstitutional powers” the green light to intrude into judicial space. In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday sustained the controversial SC (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023 — a law that envisions the formation of a committee of three senior judges to form benches on cases involving constitutional matters of public importance — and declared it “constitutional”.
The top court also upheld a section of the law that envisages the right to appeal in future cases, while rejecting the right to appeal in cases already decided.
The verdict comes after all 15 judges of the SC conducted five hearings on petitions challenging the practice and procedure law, that were streamed live on television — another first.
Here’s what politicians and lawyers had to say about the apex court’s judgement. ‘Welcome step’
PML-N leader Shehbaz Sharif — during whose tenure the practice and procedure law was passed by the Parliament — called today’s decision a “welcome step”.
“It not only democratises the workings of the Supreme Court itself but also shows due respect to the Parliament, which represents the people of Pakistan.
“It is important to mention that, according to legal experts, the specific clause under discussion concerning appeals against past judgments does not affect Mian Nawaz Sharif,” he said in a post on X.
PPP leader Sherry Rehman said today’s proceedings and verdict had enhanced “transparency and faded image of the superior court”. In a statement released by its Central Media Department, the PTI said today’s verdict had resulted in disappointment for a political party, apparently referring to the PML-N.
“After the majority verdict of the SC, the possibilities of conspiracies against Sadiq and Amin Imran Khan have died,” it stated, adding that now “fake and false” cases against the PTI chairman could not impact the “certificate of his honesty”.
‘Verdict doesn’t prevent Nawaz from contesting elections’ Lawyer Usama Khawar called the decision “truly unprecedented and remarkable in many significant steps”.
“Firstly, the manner in which the proceedings were conducted was remarkable. It was for the first time that a public official promised transparency to the public and he delivered despite significant potential risks to his own authority and privileges.
Khawar highlighted that Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa risked “exposing his left flank by forming a full court so early in his career”, noting that “public defeat” i.e., becoming a minority in front of the camera would have severely undermined his authority. “Similarly, open questioning of the CJP’s authority to conduct the proceedings and the acrimony and bickering amongst judges in the full glare of camera would have also severely undermined his authority,” he said. “Thirdly, it is unprecedented that a person in power has gone to such a great length and taken such risks to divest his own powers and privileges. This is remarkably rare in public affairs in the world arena and even rarer in Pakistan,” Khawar said, adding that the only remotely comparable example was then-President Asif Ali Zardari’s handing over of the presidency’s power to the parliament and prime minister through the 18th Amendment.
He further said that, in the short-run, today’s judgment does not immediately prevent PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif — who is expected to return to Pakistan in 10 days — and Jahangir Tareen from contesting elections because of the previous government’s amendment to Section 232 (Disqualification on account of offences) of the Election Act, 2017. “Until then Nawaz is technically eligible to contest elections. The other option available to SC is to take up the petition of the Pakistan Bar Council challenging the lifetime disqualification of parliamentarians. This might not be as easy, legally and politically, as it might sound,” he added. ‘Hard to identify a winner’
lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said.
“The CJP could have simply sat the full court on its administrative side and updated the Supreme Court rules, rendering these proceedings effectively moot. He could have put together ten judges and undone Justice Munib Akhtar’s order,” he said.
But instead, the lawyer highlighted, the CJP “let everyone see the proceedings — which for the most part he himself must have found disagreeable — and allowed every SC judge to have a vote”. “This is all commendable,” Jaferii added.
Talking about the decision itself, he said it was hard to identify a winner.
“Nawaz Sharif loses his ability to appeal his disqualification. The PTI lost most of its petitions. The court lost its ability to regulate its rules and procedures. The Parliament stands exposed by the minority as a malafide transgressor into the domain of the judiciary. Shehbaz Sharif is suddenly looking good in his suit. Shoes shined and all.”
“In the end, the house always wins,” he concluded. ‘Not a win for Parliament, nor for the judiciary’ “Pakistan is a parliamentary system, and its elected representatives have the full right to change whatever they like, including the procedure of the Supreme Court — subject, of course, to what the court decides,” said Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. “By dint of the vote, they get to decide what the law should be,” he added. “But it is in keeping with parliamentary sovereignty that a law claiming to promote the collective wisdom of the judicial branch should also have been brought about by the collective wisdom of the legislature.” For Asad, “It’s not a win for Parliament when the Constitution is amended by a rump assembly fearful of elections, instead of a two-thirds majority.
“Nor is it a win for judicial independence when a desperate law is passed to declaw the suo motu, right after the judges ordered polls be held in 90 days.” Source: dawn.com.
Monday, April 20, 2026
