The Supreme Court ruled that its jurisdiction could not be extended under provincial law, but with Act of parliament.
“Legislative competence of provincial assembly in so far as its jurisdiction of courts concerned can only reach up to the high court concerned and nothing more,” reads the 17-page judgment drafted by Judge Munib Akhtar in reviewing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical School Reform Act of 2015.
BUT division bench of The Supreme Court, presided over by Judge Ijazul Ahsan, raised the question of whether the SC could hear an appeal brought against it under Article 212(3) against Order of tribunal created by provincial law if it was contrary to a clause of that article.
“Because the jurisdiction of this court concerned only the federation has or may have any legislative competence in attitude towards him. Principle just said may also be modified as follows: of in various Legislatures created by the Constitution are only parliament who may (if at all) enact legislation that operates or affects the jurisdiction of this court (Supreme Court). The provincial assemblies cannot do this,” the verdict says. added.
The decision stated that the Constitution of the country concerns with as well as set up bodies of State at both the federal and regional levels.
it added that he divided the competence, powers and jurisdictions connected in each case both horizontally (among various agencies at that level) and vertically (between each agency at the federal and provincial levels).
“Because the judiciary is concerned, the Supreme Court sits on top of in the system and in in each province, the highest court is the highest court.” added.
The court noted that before changes 18th amendment in 2010, there were two lists in the current Constitution, one exclusive to the federation and others parallel between it and the provinces.
“The corresponding entry from the federal list (No. 55). Entry #46 of simultaneous list as it was of other such lists in previous constitutional set-ups, provided for legislative competence with respect to jurisdiction and powers of all [the] courts, but expressly excluded by the Supreme Court. Thus the position clear. This is just parliament who may (if at all) enact legislation affecting or affecting the jurisdiction of this court. The provinces do not have such legislative competence,” the court said in the ruling. added.
The decision stated that it should be remembered that the federation could not be forced to pass the corresponding law.
“If the provincial assembly wishes shut out all remedies and leave only the path to this court, he must first pass required permission and this must be done up federal law. Only then and under [the] coating of Act of parliamentthat the door to this courtyard is open. If the provincial assembly is not wish to follow this route or parliament refuses to enact enabling legislation in terms of reservation, then the door to this courtyard remains shut”, read the verdict.
Court also noted issue of parameter up tribunals in relation to district courts in provinces and the federal capital.
“Law 2016 in relation to the Islamabad Capital Territory presents no difficulties. This is federal law and clause (2) applies in relation to them automatically. Thus, the door to point (3) is open. However, it is not in respect of provincial legislation, including KP Law 1991, Punjab Law 1991 and Balochistan Law 2021”, decision added.
“Position of tribunals set up according to these laws is no different from one set up in accordance with the KP Law 2015. Therefore, for for the same reasons, an appeal to this court (at present) cannot be sustained under section 212(3) against [the] decisions of relevant tribunals. Position in Sindh requires separate consideration,” the verdict says.
The decision stated that the court for the district court is set up through way of amendments to the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
“The amendments were made Sindh Act 1991 purely statutory amendment. So, Sindh Law 1974 originally set up administrative tribunal to which the reservation applies in terms of Law 1974. Appeals from this tribunal do lie in this court in terms of Article 212 (3). which of in new tribunal set up way of inserts in said act? Can it be of any use, so to speak? of cover provided by the 1974 Act? Now general rule pertaining to a purely changing law, is that it erases itself as soon as force is required, amendments are made immediately in text of amendments are being made to the law, ”the verdict says.
The verdict states that no appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. in terms of Article 212 (3) against in decision of a tribunal established by a provincial law to which the reservation to paragraph (2) did not apply.
“Any leave requests and appeals pending and not pending must be immediately returned office and such leave applications shall not be considered in future”, it was noted.
The order stated that petitions and/or appeals, already decided or decided of (including on way of have been withdrawn or returned to custody or otherwise processed with), whether by way of a detailed decision or brief order stating that announced orally or in writing and independently of whether in respect of any such question detailed reasons were expected, all such questions should regarded as past and closed.
“The registrar must ensure what a copy of this decision is immediately sent to the registrars of all tribunals to which subparagraph (a) applies and the said registrars shall immediately draw their attention to it of chairmen and members of said tribunals,” the verdict reads.
“Possible liability of each chair ensure that, until specified in paragraph (2) of Article 212 becomes applicable to the tribunal, the following (or similar) legend is inserted as appropriate in title page of each decision of them for benefit of all litigants: This tribunal is not subject to the reservation to paragraph (2) of Article 212 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and therefore no petition or appeal for permission is made to the Honorable Supreme Court. of Pakistan in terms of point 3) of said article, added.