Outcry over bills on rallies, SC judges’ strength

• Proposed law seeks to increase number of SC judges to 21 to clear backlog; PTI terms it ‘court-stacking’
• Bill empowers magistrate to ban gatherings in capital, proposes 3-year jail term for violation; PTI cries foul
• Bill for rights of divorced women referred to panel; opinion sought from Council of Islamic Ideology
ISLAMABAD: The government on Monday tab­led separate bills in the Sen­ate to regulate public gatherings in Islamabad — a week before the PTI’s Sept 8 jalsa — and incre­ase the number of judges in the Supreme Court to clear the backlog, much to the chagrin of the former ruling party whose lawmakers opposed both proposed laws.
One of the bills ‘Pea­ceful Assembly and Public Order Bill 2024’ aimed to empower the district magistrate to regulate and ban public gatherings in Islam­abad, saying the event coordinator would need to apply for permission in writing seven days before the event.
The bill supported by the PPP, Balochistan Awa­mi Party, Muttahida Qau­mi Movement (MQM-P), and the Awami National Party was moved by PML-N Senator Irfanul Haq Siddiqui. Senate Chairman Yusuf Raza Gilani referred it to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, seeking a report within two days.
According to the draft of the bill, “…the district magistrate before granting permission shall examine the prevailing law and order situation and obtain security clearance reports from law enforcement agencies.”
It also aimed to empower the government to designate a specific area of the ICT as a “red zone” or “high-security zone”, prohibiting all types of assemblies in that area. Similarly, it said that the magistrate shall not permit any assembly in any area other than the designated area. “The assembly shall proceed and take place at the specified locality or route, in the manner and during the times mentioned in the permission,” it read.
The magistrate can deny the permission if the gathering poses any risk to public safety or national safety or in case of reports from law enforcement agencies about the risk of violence. The permission can also be denied if the gathering disrupts routine life or if any other procession is being held at the time.

The ban on assembly under the proposed law will remain in force for the duration specified by the district magistrate, which may be extended if the conditions necessitating the ban persist.
“An officer-in-charge of a police station, on the instruction of the district magistrate, may command any assembly likely to disturb the public peace to disperse,” it said, adding that participants would have to comply with the directive. In case of non-compliance, force can be used and if necessary police can detain the members of “such unlawful assembly”.
“Whoever having been convicted by a court in Pakistan of an offence punishable under this act with imprisonment for a term of three years or more shall for every subsequent offence be liable to imprisonment for a term that may extend to ten years,” it read.

Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the bill was meant to ensure order and safety of people and regulate public meetings. He said some other cities, including Lahore, already had such laws.
Strongly opposing the bill, PTI Opposition Leader Syed Shibli Faraz termed the bill mala fide and noted that there was no doubt it was ‘PTI-specific’. “The law minister should have rejected it to prove his credentials. In the worst case scenario, the bill be referred to the standing committee,” he said while speaking on the topic.
Parliamentary leader of PTI Syed Ali Zafar also said the bill was “PTI-specific and meant to keep the party out of Islamabad”.
Number of judges
‘The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) (Amendment) Act 2024’ which sought to increase the number of judges, excluding the chief justice, from 17 to 20 was also referred to the standing committee concerned.
The proposed law was moved by Balochistan’s independent senator Mohammad Abdul Qadir to “address the rising number [of] pending cases”.

The Supreme Court has four jurisdictions: original, appellate, advisory, and review…contributing to [the] continuous accumulation of cases.
The PTI opposed the bill, alleging that it had been brought with ill-intent to install hand-picked judges to get favourable decisions.
Senator Qadir, the mover of the bill, said its purpose was to ensure quick justice and clear pendency of over 53,000 cases in the apex court. The litigants have to wait up to two years to get their cases fixed in the top court, he said.
Senator Qadir said the judges continue to delay decisions on common people’s cases because of their engagements with a number of cases involving constitutional matters. He described the growing population as another reason to increase the number.
The PTI leader Ali Zafar said that the government should have introduced reforms in the lower judiciary instead of talking about increasing the number of judges in the SC.
“This is called court-stacking,” he said, adding that several African, Latin American, and Asian countries in the past had increased the number of judges in the superior judiciary in line with the same practice.
“The purpose is to take over the court system by bringing those judges who are favourable to a certain regime.”
ANP Senator Aimal Wali Khan called for establishing a separate constitutional court. He said it was necessary to increase the number of judges in lower courts.
Law Minister Senator Azam Nazeer Tarar, indirectly supporting the bill, warned the opposition not to politicise the issue.
He said appeals by prisoners facing death and life imprisonment had been pending since 2015.
He underlined that the framers of the Consti­tution did not fix the number of judges in the superior judiciary and left it open for the parliament to do so from time to time.
He said the government would examine the bill and then respond, requesting the chair to refer the matter to the committee concerned.
Published in Dawn, September 3rd, 2024