The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the petitions challenging various articles of the 18th Amendment, notably the new methodology for appointment of superior courts' judges. A 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, on Thursday reserved the judgement, saying that the verdict would be pronounced at an appropriate time instead of giving short order.
During the hearing on Thursday, the judges observed that it is up to the parliament to make amendments to the Constitutions, examining all the aspects in the right prospective. Resuming his arguments, Rashid A Rizvi, counsel for Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) and other bars, cited judicial system of UK with regard to new mode of appointment envisaged under Article 175-A.
He said that the judges there were more independent from political interference, as they have shifted from the previous system while in Pakistan through this amendment, the government act would be act interference in the judiciary's independence. He pleaded the court that sub articles 4 and 5 concerning inclusion of attorney general and law minister in the judicial commission should be struck down.
If these were struck down, the others would survive, he said, adding that he had talked to bars who were of the view that commission should be retained but not in the present form. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday remarked that it would be severability or slaughter. He said if only lawyers and judges were retained, the people would start saying that they had started favouring each other and the result would be tearing of clothes.
Justice Jawad S Khawja observed that the court couldn't suggest about the expulsion or inclusion of any person, as lawmaking is the sole job of the parliament. He further remarked the court could not interfere in the jurisdiction of the parliament. He observed that the representatives could not go beyond limits as parliament was a body, which could not transcend the constitution. Justice Saqib Nisar observed it is the constitution of a country, which empowers the parliament to amend, deleting or adding any provision as per national requirement.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said the commission for the appointment of judges in Britain was free from executive's interference, but in the case of Pakistan executive has been a major say in the process of judges' appointment. After conclusion of arguments by the counsels, the court reserved its judgement, saying that a detailed judgement will be pronounced instead of short one.
The process of judge's appointment by a judicial commission, change of NWFP's name as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, deleting the relevant Article that bound political parties to hold intra party elections were challenged in the apex court by various political parties, lawyers and individuals.
Comments
Comments are closed.