Judge Ayesha Malik issued a dissenting opinion in the Practice and Procedural Law case.
In a dissenting note, Justice Ayesha Malik said that the right of appeal cannot be provided by simple legislation, a constitutional amendment is needed to grant the right of appeal in Article 184/3, under Article 191 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to make rules.
In the dissenting opinion, it was said that the law on practice cannot abolish the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court, the Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court can only be changed by the plenary session.
He stated that the right of appeal of any party cannot be extinguished by the composition of the plenary session, the purpose of granting the right of appeal in 184/3 will be destroyed by the composition of the plenary session.
In December last year, the Supreme Court issued a detailed judgment in the case of the Act on Practice and Procedures.
Earlier, Justice Shahid Waheed also issued a dissenting note in the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill case.
In a dissenting note, Justice Shahid Waheed said that the judiciary and administrative affairs are set apart by the constitution, enhancement of judicial power is possible only through constitutional amendment, no new power can be conferred on the court by simple legislation it will be able to make its own rules under the Practice and Procedure Act, if a member of the judging panel is unavailable, who will take their place? The law is silent.
