Virk said that majority members of the committee supported the amendment Bill; however, some members were of the view that this is not an appropriate time for the passage of the Bill. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 2016 proposes new clauses to Article 184 of the Constitution. According to the Bill, the new clauses are "(4) any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Supreme Court under clause (3) may, within thirty days of the passing of such order, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court." "An appeal preferred under clause (4) shall be heard by a bench larger than the bench, which had passed the order appeal," says the Bill, moved by Minister for Law, Justice and Climate Change Zahid Hamid.
PPPP MNA Syed Naveed Qamar said that right to appeal against a suo motu order was mandatory, but such amendment in the Constitution after Panama Paper Leaks case in the Supreme Court creates serious doubts. "The PPPP will not support the proposed amendment till the decision on Panama papers case," Qamar added. He requested the government to postpone 24th Constitution Amendment Bill in the prevailing situation.
PTI MNA Dr Arif Alvi while opposing the Bill said that the passage of 24th Constitution Amendment Bill will spread an inappropriate message among the masses. Hamid said this is inappropriate to say that the government is bringing a Constitution Amendment Bill to save its skin. "Earlier, opposition parties wanted to give right to appeal against suo motu order and now they are opposing the government bill without any reason," he added.
JI MNA Asia said that her party is totally rejecting the bill as in context of Panama Paper case, the provision of right to appeal against the suo motu order of the Supreme Court will create a bad impression.
MQM MNA SA Iqbal Qadri supported the 24th Constitution Amendment Bill and proposed that the right to appeal should be limited to seven days, instead of 30 days proposed in the amendment. According to the statement and objects of the Bill, at present there is no provision for appeal against an order of the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution. Since such an order invokes a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Chapter-I and part-II, an aggrieved party should have the right to appeal, which shall as lobe in conformity with the fundamental right to fair trial and due process conferred by article 10A of the constitution.
The proposed amendment provides for an appeal within thirty days of an order of the Supreme Court under Clause (3) of Article 184, to be heard by the bench larger than the bench, which had passed order under appeal. The committee also considered the Alternate Dispute Resolution Bill, 2016 in detail. The Bill was introduced with the objectives to introduce the mechanism for redressal of grievances of litigants and to provide speedy dispensation of justice and to reduce burden on the courts. The committee proposed several amendments and deferred the Bill for further discussion to make it more viable.
The meeting was attended by MNAs, former Justice Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema, Kiran Haider, Syed Ayaz Ali Shah Sherazi, Mumtaz Ahmed Tarar, Rajab Ali Khan Baloch and Muhammad Ayaz Soomro.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017