AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 127.04 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BOP 6.67 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
CNERGY 4.51 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 8.55 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DFML 41.44 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DGKC 86.85 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 32.28 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 64.80 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 10.25 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUBC 109.57 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 14.68 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 5.05 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 7.46 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 41.38 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
NBP 60.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 190.10 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PAEL 27.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PIBTL 7.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PPL 150.06 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PRL 26.88 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PTC 16.07 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SEARL 86.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 7.71 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TOMCL 35.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TPLP 8.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TREET 16.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 53.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
UNITY 26.16 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
WTL 1.26 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 10,010 Increased By 126.5 (1.28%)
BR30 31,023 Increased By 422.5 (1.38%)
KSE100 94,192 Increased By 836.5 (0.9%)
KSE30 29,201 Increased By 270.2 (0.93%)

A constitutional petition, challenging the 19th Amendment Act, was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, urging the court to direct the government and Judicial Commission (JC) for appointment of judges to refrain from any move for appointment of judges of Islamabad High Court (IHC).
One, Shahid Orakzai, filed the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, making the Federation, through Secretary Ministry of Law and Attorney General, as respondents. The petitioner reminded the court that the latest amendment primarily is aimed at removing the flaws he had singularly pointed out in 18th Amendment in relation to the new High Court to be established in Islamabad.
He pointed out that Article 81 had never been part of the 18th Amendment but was now amended to make room for expenditure on the new High Court. The latest effort, according to the petitioner, only confirms that the previous attempt to amend the document was, in fact, a sheer violation of the constitution. He clarified that the expenditures listed in Articles 81 and 121 cannot be granted by the National Assembly or Provincial Assembly until they are approved by the president or the governor concerned.
The petitioner contended that the thoughtless majority of the two houses had made no change in Article 208 which reads that "Supreme Court and Federal Shariat Court, with the approval of the President and a High Court, with the approval of the governor concerned, may make rules providing for the appointment of court officers and servants and for their terms and conditions of employment.
The petitioner pointed out that the President has no direct concern with the office of any High Court and the four governors are least concerned about the Islamabad High Court. He submitted that the officers and servants of the court are appointed only by the Chief Justice of the High Court who alone can estimate the expenditures mentioned in Article 121.
The petitioner contended that the new High Court in federal capital would trespass the jurisdiction of the four High Courts as it would have jurisdiction in all the provinces. "The Supreme Court shall take note that while the four High Courts make such order under Article 199 only about their own province, the Islamabad High Court could make the same order about any of the four provinces", he cautioned.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2011

Comments

Comments are closed.