The independence of the judiciary cannot be compromised, Justice Shahid Waheed

Practice and Procedure Act is in conflict with the Constitution, if allowed to resort to Article 191, it will be possible to intervene in judicial matters through ordinances, Supreme Court Judge issued dissenting note.
Web Desk: Justice Shahid Waheed of the Supreme Court has issued a dissenting note saying that the Practice and Procedure Act is in conflict with the Constitution. In a dissenting note, he has written that if the recourse to Article 191 is allowed, judicial matters can also be interfered with through ordinances.
The note also states that extension of judicial jurisdiction is possible only through constitutional amendment.
He has further written in his dissenting note that the Judges Committee will be able to form it according to its rules, practice and procedure, but if any member of the committee is not available, who will take his place?
He pointed out that according to the Practice and Procedure Law, no other judge can replace a committee member.
If one member is sick and the other is out of the country, how will the benches be constituted in emergency situations?
Justice Shahid Waheed has written in a dissenting note that what will happen if 2 members of the committee decide to send the Chief Justice to the provincial registry?
Justice Shahid Waheed has written in his dissenting note that the chief justice is the administrative head of the Supreme Court, the consequences of sending him to other provinces will be serious.
He has written that there is no answer to these questions in the law, nor can the Judges Committee find any solution to them. According to the Constitution, the decision of whether the petitions under Article 184/3 can be heard is possible only in the court, the Judges Committee administratively. cannot decide whether an application is admissible or not.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Practice and Procedure Act are inconsistent with each other, as per section 184/3 Fundamental Rights case can be heard by a 3-member bench.
Justice Shahid Waheed has said in the ongoing note that according to Section 4, only a 5-member bench can interpret the issue of fundamental rights, Section 3 allows hearing and constitutional interpretation while Section 4 prohibits, every other Supreme Court In the case, the interpretation of the constitution is required, if a five-member bench is formed for each case, how will the decisions of 50,000 pending cases be made? This point makes it clear how much the practice and procedure law will be a hindrance to the administration of justice.
According to Justice Shahid Waheed, the justice system is the backbone for the rule of law. It is necessary for the rule of law to allow the judiciary to function freely without any interference. The independence and independence of the judiciary cannot be compromised. , the Practice and Procedure Act is inconsistent with the Constitution.