Now that the CJP-headed bench has taken up the case, the complaints by lawyers that excessive use of suo motu powers without determining the limits or constraints to the provision risked adverse effects on the judiciary's credibility may finally be adjudicated. However, the PBC has argued that given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, perhaps a full court hearing would be appropriate. Some amongst them have wondered at the CJP taking up the issue of determination of the limits and constraints on the SC's powers in this matter a mere four months before his retirement. That questioning is tempered by the thought that perhaps it is not too late to correct what appears to have become almost an established practice. In any case, better late than never. The effects of the excessive use of suo motu powers have revealed themselves over time. First and foremost, when the SC exercises its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3), it deprives litigants of access to the lower tiers of the judicial system. Further, there is no appeal from the verdict of the SC. A Bill to allow appeals against such verdicts is still pending in parliament. In the view of some lawyers, the excessive use of suo motu powers under Article 184(3) has often sealed the fate of an aggrieved party, especially when a different issue or aspect was brought to the court's notice during such hearings. No one, least of all our leading lawyers, has suggested taking away such powers completely, as this may render the apex court toothless in matters clearly related to fundamental rights. But constraints and limitations have suggested themselves precisely because of the excessive use of the SC's powers. The fact that the CJP has decided to hear the issue suggests that perhaps the superior judiciary itself has finally realised the adverse effects and implications of this practice in recent years.
Now that the CJP-headed bench has taken up the case, the complaints by lawyers that excessive use of suo motu powers without determining the limits or constraints to the provision risked adverse effects on the judiciary's credibility may finally be adjudicated. However, the PBC has argued that given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, perhaps a full court hearing would be appropriate. Some amongst them have wondered at the CJP taking up the issue of determination of the limits and constraints on the SC's powers in this matter a mere four months before his retirement. That questioning is tempered by the thought that perhaps it is not too late to correct what appears to have become almost an established practice. In any case, better late than never. The effects of the excessive use of suo motu powers have revealed themselves over time. First and foremost, when the SC exercises its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3), it deprives litigants of access to the lower tiers of the judicial system. Further, there is no appeal from the verdict of the SC. A Bill to allow appeals against such verdicts is still pending in parliament. In the view of some lawyers, the excessive use of suo motu powers under Article 184(3) has often sealed the fate of an aggrieved party, especially when a different issue or aspect was brought to the court's notice during such hearings. No one, least of all our leading lawyers, has suggested taking away such powers completely, as this may render the apex court toothless in matters clearly related to fundamental rights. But constraints and limitations have suggested themselves precisely because of the excessive use of the SC's powers. The fact that the CJP has decided to hear the issue suggests that perhaps the superior judiciary itself has finally realised the adverse effects and implications of this practice in recent years.