ISLAMABAD: While some specific voices are criticizing the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in which the decision of parliamentary committee on judges’ appointment has been annulled by the apex court, the legal fraternity holds that it is a judgment which is well within the parameters of the Constitution.
The prime minister after meeting with the president Supreme Court Bar Association also gave a coded message that only the parliament can amend the Constitution whereas apart from a few lawyers, legal minds are of the considered opinion that the SC judgment did not conflict with any of the amendments of the Constitution.
The parliamentary committee had turned down the names of six judges of high courts who were recommended by the judicial commission. The SC has annulled the decision of the parliamentary committee. Justice (R) Wajhiuddin Ahmad while talking to The News said that the most senior judges of the superior judiciary were engaged in the appointment of judges, therefore their recommendation could only be turned down by giving valid reasons.
He said what the Supreme Court has done is known as the power of judicial review which is not equal to an amendment in the Constitution as being portrayed by a few politicians and leaders of legal fraternity.
“A judicial review is not exercised on the basis of likes and dislikes but on the basis of issues and questions that come before the courts,” said the judge.He said that the judicial commission was not an ordinary institution that its recommendations could be turned down that easily. He mentioned that the parliamentary committee has the powers to turn down the recommendations but on the basis of valid reasons.
In the case of six judges the reasons of the parliamentary committee were not strong and valid that is why SC has annulled its decision. Former Attorney General of Pakistan Anwer Mansoor Khan who had challenged the decision of the Parliamentary Committee, when contacted said that the decision of the SC did not touch the 19th Amendment.
He mentioned that the parliamentary committee had to give reasons to turn down any recommendation and those reasons have to be justiciable. “And the matter of judging the reasons of parliamentary committee has to come in the courts otherwise the courts should be locked and everybody should be sent home,” the lawyer said.
He said that the matter of six judges of high courts was not that serious and the SC has decided the matter because the reasons given by the parliamentary committee were not valid. Hamid Khan Advocate when contacted said the SC has used the judicial review in its judgment regarding the parliamentary committee’s decision on recommendation of judges. He said that it were the courts to decide what is justiciable and what is not.
“There is no need to mention in the Constitution about holding anything justiciable,” said the senior lawyer. He mentioned that the statement of the prime minister was out of ignorance and the SC has not struck down any amendment in its judgment.
K A Wahab Advocate, Vice President Supreme Court Bar Association Pakistan (Sindh) while commenting on the judgment of the SC said that the apex court has decided the case on merit and has found that the reasoning of the parliamentary committee was not justified.
Zubair Khalid Advocate, vice President SCBA (Punjab) said that he seconds the view of his President Asma Jahangir. He said that when a parliamentary committee has been empowered to turn down any recommendation while giving reasons then the SC should have accepted those reasons. “The Parliamentary Committee did not add anything from themselves but the views and comments of the concerned high court chief justices which should have been given due importance,” said the vice president SCBA.
Jahanzaib Khan Jadoon, vice President SCBA (Balochistan) criticized the judgment of the SC saying that the parliamentary committee has been given the power to turn down any recommendation therefore it should have been accepted by the apex court. He said that he did not think that the SC judgment was correct. He also held that names of panels should be sent instead of single name for the posts of judges.
Qamar Zaman Quershi, Secretary SCBA said that the judgment of SC was within the parameters of the Constitution. He added that the judgments of the courts should be given preference at all levels and in the particular case the SC has appreciated the laws and Constitution and has penned down a judgment that does not go beyond the ambit of the Constitution.
The News
The prime minister after meeting with the president Supreme Court Bar Association also gave a coded message that only the parliament can amend the Constitution whereas apart from a few lawyers, legal minds are of the considered opinion that the SC judgment did not conflict with any of the amendments of the Constitution.
The parliamentary committee had turned down the names of six judges of high courts who were recommended by the judicial commission. The SC has annulled the decision of the parliamentary committee. Justice (R) Wajhiuddin Ahmad while talking to The News said that the most senior judges of the superior judiciary were engaged in the appointment of judges, therefore their recommendation could only be turned down by giving valid reasons.
He said what the Supreme Court has done is known as the power of judicial review which is not equal to an amendment in the Constitution as being portrayed by a few politicians and leaders of legal fraternity.
“A judicial review is not exercised on the basis of likes and dislikes but on the basis of issues and questions that come before the courts,” said the judge.He said that the judicial commission was not an ordinary institution that its recommendations could be turned down that easily. He mentioned that the parliamentary committee has the powers to turn down the recommendations but on the basis of valid reasons.
In the case of six judges the reasons of the parliamentary committee were not strong and valid that is why SC has annulled its decision. Former Attorney General of Pakistan Anwer Mansoor Khan who had challenged the decision of the Parliamentary Committee, when contacted said that the decision of the SC did not touch the 19th Amendment.
He mentioned that the parliamentary committee had to give reasons to turn down any recommendation and those reasons have to be justiciable. “And the matter of judging the reasons of parliamentary committee has to come in the courts otherwise the courts should be locked and everybody should be sent home,” the lawyer said.
He said that the matter of six judges of high courts was not that serious and the SC has decided the matter because the reasons given by the parliamentary committee were not valid. Hamid Khan Advocate when contacted said the SC has used the judicial review in its judgment regarding the parliamentary committee’s decision on recommendation of judges. He said that it were the courts to decide what is justiciable and what is not.
“There is no need to mention in the Constitution about holding anything justiciable,” said the senior lawyer. He mentioned that the statement of the prime minister was out of ignorance and the SC has not struck down any amendment in its judgment.
K A Wahab Advocate, Vice President Supreme Court Bar Association Pakistan (Sindh) while commenting on the judgment of the SC said that the apex court has decided the case on merit and has found that the reasoning of the parliamentary committee was not justified.
Zubair Khalid Advocate, vice President SCBA (Punjab) said that he seconds the view of his President Asma Jahangir. He said that when a parliamentary committee has been empowered to turn down any recommendation while giving reasons then the SC should have accepted those reasons. “The Parliamentary Committee did not add anything from themselves but the views and comments of the concerned high court chief justices which should have been given due importance,” said the vice president SCBA.
Jahanzaib Khan Jadoon, vice President SCBA (Balochistan) criticized the judgment of the SC saying that the parliamentary committee has been given the power to turn down any recommendation therefore it should have been accepted by the apex court. He said that he did not think that the SC judgment was correct. He also held that names of panels should be sent instead of single name for the posts of judges.
Qamar Zaman Quershi, Secretary SCBA said that the judgment of SC was within the parameters of the Constitution. He added that the judgments of the courts should be given preference at all levels and in the particular case the SC has appreciated the laws and Constitution and has penned down a judgment that does not go beyond the ambit of the Constitution.
The News
