In a significant turn of events within the legal landscape, Justice Yahya Afridi has made headlines for his dissenting note concerning the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act.
The 24-page note challenged the extension of the right to appeal under Section 5 of the Act, emphasizing its nullity and raising critical concerns about parliamentary jurisdiction.
Justice Yahya Afridi’s dissenting stance primarily focused on Section 5 of the Act, arguing that granting the right to appeal in cases falling under Article 184(3) exceeds the legitimate bounds of parliamentary authority.
He contends that any extension of appeal rights in such cases should be through a constitutional amendment, stressing the need for legislative alignment with constitutional principles.
Notably, the apex court judge’s dissent underscored the potential ramifications of allowing appeals against decisions made under Article 184(3). He emphasized the importance of pursuing constitutional amendments rather than attempting to introduce such amendments through simple legislation, as it encroaches upon the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
The dissent also highlighted the inadequacies in defending Parliament’s interference with the court’s jurisdiction. Additional notes from the legal sphere critique the inability of the Attorney General and other advocates to sufficiently justify Parliament’s actions in extending the right of appeal.
It’s crucial to note that Justice Yahya Afridi was part of the panel of judges, comprising six members, who collectively deemed Section 5 of the Act as null and void.
