PHOTO: EXPRESS
Last month, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim announced the long-awaited verdict on a petition filed by a lawyer, Chaudhry Mohammad Akram, three years ago, challenging 74 appointments made in the IHC in phases from 2010 to 2013.
The 19 officials – including Muhammad Idress Khan Kasi, the brother of incumbent IHC’s chief justice – on Tuesday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its September 26 verdict wherein it is observed that the then IHC chief justice and the administration committee of two senior judges made the appointments in the establishment in total disregard to the mandate given by the rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution.
Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman was the IHC chief justice during that period and the then administration committee comprised the incumbent IHC chief justice Muhammad Anwar Kasi and Federal Shariat Court Chief Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan. Justice Rehman has already tendered his resignation on Sunday. The aggrieved officials, submitting the review petition through their counsel Syed Iftikhar Gilani, requested the Supreme Court to constitute a full court to examine the judgment as “it has very negatively impacted on the functioning of the superior courts in Pakistan”.
“The unintended consequences of the impugned judgment are extremely harmful to the smooth functioning of superior courts.”
The review petition claims that the SC’s ruling has almost re-written Clause 5 and Clause (1)a(i) of Article 199, which is not permissible.
The aggrieved officials further state that it is painful that the judges, who have impeccable records and exemplary conduct, are being maligned in public because of certain “unwarranted observations” in the judgment.
“The so-called allegations/observations against the judges are not for any misdemeanour or impropriety in their personal capacity, but for orders passed by the judges of the court, while exercising their powers duly conferred on them by the laws and the constitution.” The review petition also objected that the two very senior judges as well as the petitioners have been condemned without any right of appeal as “the order is far beyond the scope of the writ of mandamus”.
“It is painful and ironic that while the constitution protects the judiciary from ridicule – even in parliament – the impugned judgment is being used to ridicule the judges at various forums. “It is submitted that the superior judiciary has special place and protections, which the impugned order has severely scarred to the determinant of its independence.”
It is also stated that the petitioners were the staff brought in by the then chief justice under special and exigent circumstances for the creation and running of the IHC, adding they scarified their well-settled jobs in the Lahore High Court as well as the Sindh High Court in the cause of serving their country and establishing a new high court; however, this aspect is overlooked in the judgment.
The review plea contended that the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1982 themselves allowed two-step promotions. “The most grave and unintended consequence of the impugned judgment is that references are being filed and resolutions passed by the bar association against the sitting judges of the superior courts, asking for their resignation and removal.”
Published in The Express Tribune, October 26th, 2016.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ