TERENCE J SIGAMONY

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday clubbed all the applications on the scope of suo motu and appointed two senior lawyers as amici curiae (friends of court).

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, was hearing the applications to regulate the Supreme Court powers under the Article 184(3) of Constitution.

Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association and the Attorney General for Pakistan were also asked to assist the court in this case.

The hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period. Justice Qazi Faez Isa in May this year in his three-page note had raised serious questions over the manner in which public interest litigations were initiated by the Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court.

He had stated that before exercising its original jurisdiction under the Article 184(3) of Constitution, the apex court should satisfy itself that the jurisdiction it is assuming is in line with the Constitution.

Justice Faez had observed in his note that the Article 184(3) of the Constitution granted to the Supreme Court the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the Article 199 of the Constitution. He said once the SC was satisfied that these conditions (public importance and fundamental rights) were involved then the question of enforcement of the relevant fundamental rights arises.

Indiscriminate use of suo motu power is not only cause of concern for the politicians but the legal community is also averse to this provision and wanted reformation in the Constitution in this respect.

The legal experts opined that the government should consider this matter seriously and propose change in the Article 184(3) of Constitution. They shared with Business Recorder that due to suo motu, pendency in the high courts and the Supreme Court is increasing and the ordinary litigants are suffering.

Senior lawyer Iftikhar Gilani proposed that suo motu power should be abolished. “Indiscriminate suo motu power is affecting the ordinary litigant cases as almost in all the benches of the Supreme Court, the judges are interested to hear the suo motu cases,” he said.

A K Dogar, a constitutional expert, questioned why the suo motus are being taken on every issue. He said as there is no appeal against the judgment passed under Article 184(3), therefore, it should be applied sparingly.

He said the judge who takes suo motu becomes party to that case and this affects the right of other side. “No court should itself create an issue and decide it,” he added.

Farogh Naseem said suo motu power under the Article 184(3) is not wrong but its use becomes problematic, adding this provision must remain in the Constitution as it is for the benefit of those litigants who can’t afford lawyers.