TLDR:
• supreme court dismisses ordinance petitions
• practice & procedure ordinance deemed obsolete
• pti leaders among petitioners
Islamabad (The Thursday Times) — The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions challenging the Practice and Procedure Ordinance 2024, ruling the ordinance obsolete following subsequent parliamentary legislation. A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard the case and concluded that the ordinance is no longer effective.
Practice & Procedure ordinance declared redundant
During the hearing, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan remarked that the Practice and Procedure Ordinance had ceased to exist. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified that the ordinance was effectively replaced by parliamentary legislation, rendering the matter moot.
Petitioners’ counsel argued for invalidation of actions taken under the ordinance, but the bench pointed out that ordinances automatically lapse once replaced by law. Justice Jamal Mandokhail further reiterated that the Constitution grants the President authority to issue ordinances, yet they lose relevance once formal legislation is enacted.
Pti figures lead the challenge
Petitions were filed by PTI leaders Gohar Ali Khan, Afrasiab Khattak, Ihtisham-ul-Haq, and Akmal Bari, challenging the ordinance as unconstitutional. The petition claimed that the Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance undermines fundamental rights and judicial independence.
Barrister Gohar Ali Khan’s petition named the federal government, the Ministry of Law, and the Secretary to the President as respondents, contending that the ordinance curtails judicial freedom. The petition also sought an injunction to prevent the new Judges Committee from forming benches and demanded the reinstatement of the previous Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Judges Committee.
Supreme court clarifies legal safeguards
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar elaborated that the committee formed under the ordinance had already been dissolved, with its decisions safeguarded as past and closed transactions. The bench emphasised that the current legal framework supersedes the provisions of the ordinance.
This dismissal underscores the judiciary’s position that laws superseding ordinances render them void, a principle pivotal to Pakistan’s legislative and judicial processes.