ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly on Wednesday saw the tabling of a report on the proposed 24th constitutional amendment to give the right of appeal in matters where the Supreme Court took suo motu action.

The amendment was originally introduced by PPP lawmaker Ayaz Soomro as a private members bill aimed at amending the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 2015.

It proposed amendments to sections 3 and 4 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 through the insertion of sections 3A and 4A, aimed at providing appeal before a larger bench of the Supreme Court against any order or judgment made by a bench of the apex court in suo motu proceedings.

At the time, the bill was opposed by the government on the grounds that it could not be passed through a simple legislation and needed to be tabled as a constitutional amendment.

Proposed law states appeal will be heard by a bench larger than the one that issued original verdict

In its report, which was laid before the house on Wednesday by committee chairman Chaudhry Mahmood Bashir Virk, the National Assembly standing committee has recommended that the newly tabled constitutional amendment may be passed.

Talking to Dawn, Mr Virk said that while PPP’s Ayaz Soomro was not part of the committee’s deliberations on the constitutional amendment, he would be taken into confidence at a later stage since he also wanted the same thing.

The apex court can initiate suo motu proceedings under its original jurisdiction, or arising out of petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Under the proposed law, appeals challenging such judgments can be filed within two months of the date of the order or judgment that is being challenged.

If approved, it will take effect from the date of the commencement of the 18th Amendment in 2010 – a period when a number of suo motu notices were taken by former Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

At the time, the frequency of suo motu orders passed by the apex court raised eyebrows among the legal fraternity, who repeatedly highlighted the need to determine limits or constraints for the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, so that the judiciary’s credibility was not eroded.

The report of the committee, tabled before the lower house, says: “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.”

It further says: “Since such an order invokes a question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights… an aggrieved party should have the right of appeal, which shall also be in conformity with the fundamental right to fair trial and due process conferred by Article 10-A of the Constitution.”

“The proposed amendment provides for an appeal within thirty days of an order of the Supreme Court… to be heard by a bench larger than the bench which had passed the order under appeal.”

Mr Virk told Dawn that, as a jurist, he felt that any affected party was entitled to the right to appeal. “This is also in accordance with the principles of natural justice,” he said, adding that the bill had been introduced after its approval from the cabinet and was likely to be taken up in the next sitting of the National Assembly.

Mr Virk also tabled another bill on Wednesday, the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Bill, 2017 for increasing the pension rate admissible to the widows of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The bill proposed “increase the entitlement of pension of widows of the judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan and High Courts from 50pc to 75pc.

Published in Dawn, March 23rd, 2017