The Lahore High Court has reserved its verdict on the admissibility of a petition challenging the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Ordinance.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Alia Neelam was requested to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, following a petition filed by Muneer Ahmed. The chief justice asked the petitioner to explain the grounds why the ordinance was illegal.

The petitioner's lawyer, Azhar Siddique, argued that there was no emergency situation that warranted the ordinance, especially since parliament was in session at the time. He further said after promulgating the ordinance, a new committee was formed, adding that earlier also, the Practice and Procedure Act was brought up.

He explained that earlier, all the powers were vested in the chief justice of Pakistan, while parliament has the power to amend the Constitution. "The ordinance is unconstitutional in the presence of parliament," he argued. Siddique also claimed the ordinance was introduced with malicious intent and stressed that it was a matter of public interest, urging the court to accept the petition.

He also remarked that Pakistan is a democratic country governed by the Constitution.

Also Read: Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Amendment Act challenged

However, the federal government's lawyer raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, stating that such matters should be brought before the Supreme Court. The lawyer argued that the Lahore High Court does not have the authority to hear the case and requested the petition be dismissed as inadmissible.

"The application can be filed in the jurisdictional court of Islamabad. It has already been challenged in the Supreme Court. It is also challenged in the Sindh High Court where a decision on the application has been reserved," the counsel argued.

The court has now reserved its decision on whether the petition will proceed.

On Tuesday, the ordinance was challenged in both the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court issues Practice and Procedure Act detailed verdict

In the Supreme Court, Advocate Chaudhry Ehtishamul Haq submitted a petition seeking to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. The petition argued that the promulgation of the ordinance was against parliamentary democracy and requested that all actions taken under the ordinance be rendered null and void.

The petitioner also urged the court to suspend the ordinance until a decision on the application was made, citing a previous Supreme Court declaration that ordinances should only be issued in emergency situations.

Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court heard a similar challenge against the Practice and Procedure Amendment Act. After hearing arguments, the court, presided over by Justice Yousuf Ali Syed, reserved its decision.

During the proceedings, Advocate Ibrahim Saifuddin argued that the amendment represented a direct attack on the judiciary. Justice Syed noted that the Supreme Court itself had already started implementing the amended Act, with Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa issuing a formal notification.

Justice Syed questioned how the Sindh High Court could interfere in the Supreme Court's affairs, highlighting the complexity of the case.