Judicial review by the apex court: does federation want to restrict court's authority?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the federation whether it wanted to limit court's authority of judicial review which had blocked illegal take-overs and was an option to rectify any wrong decision.
Heading a 17-member bench hearing 18th Amendment case, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry posed this question to Advocate Waseem Sajjad, counsel for the federation while reminding him of apex court's decision that nullified the unconstitutional steps, taken by the former President Pervez Musharraf in November 3, 2007.
"After revisiting Tikka Iqbal's case (a judgement delivered by the apex court led by former Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar in favour of steps taken by Musharraf) the court had blocked illegal take-overs," the Chief Justice remarked. The Chief Justice asked Waseem Sajjad whether he wanted restrictions over court's power of judicial review enabling a dictator to take over and disfigure the constitution while leaving the people as silent spectators.
Whenever, martial law was imposed in past, a presidential system had been introduced and the powers of the prime minister were grabbed. It is judicial review jurisdiction which can be exercised to correct such wrong decisions, the Chief Justice added.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry directed Attorney General Moulvi Anwarul Haq to submit record of the 77 meetings held by the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) and 890 suggestions received by the committee from public.
Justice Jawwad S Khawja expressed his displeasure over non- implementation of court's earlier direction for submission of record of committee's meetings and 890 public suggestions. He said wish of people was not included over judicial commission. 'Not a whiff of their involvement was there,' he observed. Referring to the framing of 1973 Constitution, Justice Khawaja observed that the then PPP-led government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto went public, seeking proposals and had held debates on those suggestions.
Earlier, Waseem Sajjad submitted his arguments in defence of the insertion of Article 175-A through the 18th Constitutional Amendment relating to the criterion for the appointments of superior courts judges. He argued that insertion of Article 175-A had not affected independence of judiciary or separation of powers between executive and judiciary.
Wasim Sajjad contended that after the insertion of Article 175-A, a judge would have the confidence of all stakeholders ie Judiciary, Parliament and the Bar as the appointment process includes all these stakeholders in the form of judicial commission and parliamentary committee. In the process of appointment of judges, the primacy would vest with the judiciary and the Chief Justice, Waseem Sajjad stated. In order to substantiate his argument, he said that the inclusion of a retired SC judge in the Judicial Commission would be the choice of the Chief Justice and two senior judges of the apex court.
'Nobody is imposing and federation has nothing to do with it as it would be the choice of judiciary,' he emphasised. Waseem Sajjad contended that the proposed procedure for the appointment of superior courts judges had actually shared the burden of the office of Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chief Justice reminded Wasim Sajjad that inclusion of retired judge of the apex court in commission was not on the agenda of parliamentary committee but was included after a deadlock and demand of a political party.
Justice Khalil Ramday observed that the amendment was done in isolation. "If there was any fault in CJ's role, then tell us," Justice Ramday observed adding, a sacred system of last 150 years had been scrapped that reflects committee lacked trust on the CJP. This amendment was destruction of this institution rather strengthening office of CJ, he maintained. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar disagreed with the opinion and observed the new system might be for sharing of responsibility between the Chief Justice and other members.
The 17-member bench cut short its schedule duration of hearing of the cases to show respect and share grief over the plane crash tragedy when Ahmed Raza Qasuri stood up and stated that a tragic incident had happened in the vicinity, therefore, the normal proceedings should be suspended. Waseem Sajjad would resume his arguments on Thursday (today).