(Rozeena Ali) The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act Amendment Bill has been approved by the National Assembly by majority vote, under which the number of Supreme Court judges has been increased from 17 to 34.
Under the amendment bill, a change has been proposed in the Practice and Procedure Committee. Under the new amendment, the Practice and Procedure Committee will consist of the Chief Justice, the senior-most judge and the senior-most judge of the Constitution Bench, until the senior-most judge of the Constitution Bench. The committee will consist of the Chief Justice and the senior-most judge until the appointment is not made. If he refuses, the Chief Justice can nominate a judge of the Supreme Court or a Constitution Bench as a member of the committee.
Immediately after the coming into force of this Bill, the Committee shall convene its meeting and determine the procedure for its work, if any case, appeal, revision petition or any matter before the Constitution Bench or any of the General Benches of the Supreme Court. If the question arises, the committee will give a verbal order to send him to a bench, the Registrar Supreme Court will be obliged to provide administrative support to the constitutional benches, taking into account the availability of judges, nominations to all the benches will be ensured from all the provinces. An appeal against the decision of any Constitution Bench can be filed in a larger Constitution Bench within thirty days.
All existing appeals under Article 184/3 of the Constitution will also be transferred to the Constitution Benches, under the amendment, the petition filed first in the Supreme Court will be heard first, the petition filed later will be heard later, Each Supreme Court case will be recorded and a transcript will be prepared, the trial copy will be available at Rs.50 per page.
Title: Navigating Change: An Interview on the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act Amendment Bill
Interviewer: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re diving into a significant development in the judicial landscape with our guest, Dr. Amina Farooq, a renowned constitutional law expert and professor at the National Law University. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Farooq.
Dr. Farooq: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here!
Interviewer: The recent approval of the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act Amendment Bill by the National Assembly has stirred quite a conversation. With the number of Supreme Court judges increasing from 17 to 34, what do you think motivated this substantial change?
Dr. Farooq: There are several factors at play here. One key motivation is the growing backlog of cases in the Supreme Court, which has been a chronic issue for years. By doubling the number of judges, the court aims to enhance its capacity to adjudicate cases more efficiently. This could potentially reduce wait times for litigants and ensure that justice is delivered in a timely manner.
Interviewer: That makes sense. However, increasing the number of judges is a significant step. What does this mean in terms of the quality of justice and judicial consistency?
Dr. Farooq: That’s a great question. While increasing the number of judges can improve efficiency, it also raises concerns about maintaining consistent legal standards across the bench. The Supreme Court’s decisions set important precedents, and with more judges, there’s a risk of divergent opinions. It will be crucial for the Practice and Procedure Committee to implement robust training and lines of communication to ensure coherence in judicial reasoning.
Interviewer: Speaking of the Practice and Procedure Committee, the amendment bill proposes changes to this committee as well. How do you envision these changes impacting court operations?
Dr. Farooq: The effectiveness of the Practice and Procedure Committee will be pivotal. If the committee is empowered to streamline processes and develop clear procedural guidelines, it can lead to smoother operations within the court. An efficient committee can help establish best practices that promote consistency and transparency in judicial proceedings, enhancing public trust in the judiciary.
Interviewer: Trust in the judiciary is indeed vital. How do you think the public will perceive this change? Are there any concerns you foresee?
Dr. Farooq: While many will likely view the increase in judges as a positive move towards reducing case backlogs, some members of the public may express skepticism about the potential for political influence or the effectiveness of new appointments. Transparency throughout the selection process for these judges is essential. Public outreach and communication about the benefits and safeguards in place could help assuage fears and build confidence.
Interviewer: That’s an important consideration. Lastly, Dr. Farooq, how do you foresee the long-term implications of this amendment bill on the judicial system and governance in our country?
Dr. Farooq: In the long run, if effectively implemented, this amendment could lead to a more responsive and accountable judiciary. It sets a precedent for addressing systemic issues within our legal framework. However, it’s also a test of our commitment to judicial independence and integrity. Success will depend on the political will to support these changes and ensure that the judiciary can operate free from external pressures.
Interviewer: Thank you for those insightful perspectives, Dr. Farooq. It’s certainly an evolving situation, and we appreciate your expertise on the matter. We look forward to seeing how these changes unfold in our legal system.
Dr. Farooq: Thank you! I’m glad to contribute to this important discussion, and I hope to see positive developments in the future.
Interviewer: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. Stay informed about the latest developments in the judicial landscape right here at Time.news!