Explainer: Why are the Pakistan govt and chief justice at loggerheads?

Pakistan, which has been mired in another political crisis for months with no sign of relief, has now experienced a new constitutional crisis.

The government introduced a measure on Tuesday in the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, to curtail the Supreme Court's authority because, according to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, it was causing "political instability" in the nation.

The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, was passed as a result of the top court's "suo motu" notification that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had postponed provincial elections in Punjab, the province with the most population.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday (28 March) proposed a pay cut for himself and other judges so that the important task of holding elections across the country could be funded and completed.

He passed these remarks as the apex court resumed hearing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's (PTI) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to postpone general elections to the Punjab Assembly till 8 October.

When a court initiates proceedings suo motu, it means that it has taken cognizance of an issue and determined that it is in the public interest

Here are all details you need to know about it:

What action did the government take?

A resolution criticising the Supreme Court of "judicial activism" and requesting its "non-interference" in topics pertaining to the ECP was adopted by the National Assembly on Tuesday.

"This house believes that an unnecessary intrusion of the judiciary in the political matters is the main cause of political instability," said the resolution.

The draft bill presented in parliament seeks to amend laws regarding the conduct of the top court and suggests setting up a three-member panel headed by the chief justice to take up suo motu cases.

What brought on the fight between the government and court?

The dispute began when former Prime Minister Imran Khan lost a vote of confidence in the Parliament in April of last year.

Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has begun a campaign across the country to call for early national elections. These polls were originally set to take place later this year.

After the federal government turned down his demand, the former cricket star turned politician, now 72 years old, decided to call elections in January for the provincial assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Although elections in Pakistan are traditionally held at the national and provincial levels simultaneously, Khan's move was an attempt to push the polls.

Nonetheless, elections in Pakistan must be held no later than ninety days after a parliament is dissolved.

Even so, a stalemate developed when the ECP failed to publish an election timetable, leading President Arif Alvi, a member of Khan's PTI, to proclaim April 9 as the election date in the two provinces.

After concerns were raised over the constitutionality of Alvi's proclamation, Pakistan's Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial took suo motu notice of the matter and convened a hearing on 23 February.

The Supreme Court issued its 3-2 verdict on 1 March ordering the ECP to fulfill its constitutional duties and declare an election date for the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces after four justices recused themselves from the initial nine-judge panel appointed to consider the case.

The ECP announced the date of the election in Punjab province to be 30 April just two days later, on 3 March.

But, the polling body cancelled its plan last week, citing security and budgetary problems as reasons why the vote could not be held in April. It said that elections in Punjab would be rescheduled to 8 October.

The PTI, infuriated by the ECP's action, has petitioned the Supreme Court, which is now considering the matter. As a result, the administration was compelled to introduce a resolution condemning the judiciary.

What do legal experts have to say?

While some legal experts agree that the government's plans to limit the Supreme Court's authority are appropriate, they question whether or not parliament is going about it in the right way.

It's about time the government started doing what it's now trying to do. Abuzar Salman Niazi, a constitutional scholar and lawyer based in Lahore, told Al Jazeera that the government's methods were questionable.

Niazi said most of the changes proposed by the government are constitutional amendments, which require a two-thirds majority in parliament, which the Sharif government lacks.

He also questioned the timing of the bill. "It appears they are solely doing this to pressurise the chief justice of Pakistan," he said.

"A simple act of parliament to regulate judiciary with respect to procedural and substantive law might be in conflict with the independence of judiciary which is a basic structure of our constitution. The courts may strike it down if reviewed or challenged by court," he added.

However constitutional scholar and lawyer Salaar Khan of Islamabad told Al Jazeera that he does not think the revision will limit the Supreme Court's authority.

"This bill is just about restructuring of power. It is currently the sole prerogative of the chief justice of the court to take suo motu notices. One could argue that the proposal is about expanding the role for other judges as well since the Supreme Court is not defined as just the chief justice, but other judges too," he said.

Niazi said the government should have tried to put pressure on the court to make the changes it wants instead of tabling a bill in parliament.

"The government is proposing to amend the rules of the Supreme Court which is the job of the apex court itself. What if the court takes up a matter of parliamentary rules and procedure tomorrow and starts dictating how the parliament should conduct its affairs? It would have been better to let the Supreme Court amend its own rules and procedures," he added.

Imran Khan's reaction

Imran Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, has lashed out at the federal government for seeking to limit the chief justice's discretionary powers, claiming that this is an attempt to increase the workload on the country's court, Pakistan media reported.

Khan has also called for unity among lawyers to prevent the judiciary from being divided.

Khan's call came shortly after the introduction of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which seeks to limit the discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan to take suo motu notice.

Imran Khan has called on all lawyers to attend the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) next convention. He emphasised the importance of making the correct decision and cautioned that anybody may be mistreated by the government like Barrister Hassaan Niazi.

What the president can do? 

President Alvi may play a trump card by refraining from giving assent to the bill and returning it to the parliament with amendment proposals for consideration. The parliament will either consider or reject the amendment proposals. Then the bill will again be sent to president Alvi for assent. This time he can either give assent or again refrain. If he fails to give assent within 10 days on receiving the bill, it will be deemed to have received president's assent.

Can SC now do anything? 

Even the Supreme Court may declare it unconstitutional as Pakistan's top lawyers questioned the way the powers of the Chief Justice were cut.