Image Credits : Gulf Today
Pakistan’s parliament has introduced bills that seek to ban dual citizenship for judges, establish a nine-member bench for public interest cases, and curtail the Supreme Court’s authority to initiate legal proceedings on its own, known as Suo motu powers. These proposals, which have sparked widespread debate, are seen as part of a broader effort to reform the judiciary and address concerns over judicial overreach.
The bill to ban dual citizenship for judges has been introduced amid growing concerns about potential conflicts of interest and questions about the loyalty of those serving in the country’s highest courts. Lawmakers advocating for the bill argue that judges holding dual citizenship may face divided loyalties, which could undermine the integrity of the judiciary. If passed, the law would require judges to renounce any foreign citizenship they hold or face disqualification from their positions.
Alongside this, the parliament has also proposed the formation of a nine-member bench for hearing public interest cases. Currently, such cases can be heard by benches of varying sizes, often leading to inconsistent rulings. The new bill aims to standardize the process, ensuring that all public interest cases are heard by a larger, more diverse panel of judges. Proponents argue that this measure will lead to more balanced and well-considered judgments, reflecting a broader spectrum of legal opinion.
Perhaps the most contentious of the proposed reforms is the bill that seeks to abolish the Supreme Court’s Suo motu powers. These powers, which allow the Court to initiate legal proceedings on its own without a formal complaint, have been a subject of controversy in Pakistan for years.
Critics argue that Suo motu powers have been used inconsistently and have allowed the judiciary to encroach on the domains of the executive and legislative branches of government. The proposed bill would require that all cases be brought before the Court through proper legal channels, effectively eliminating the Court’s ability to act on its initiative.
Opponents of the bill, however, warn that curtailing Suo motu powers could weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on government excesses and corruption. They argue that these powers have historically played a crucial role in addressing human rights violations and holding public officials accountable.