Former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. PHOTO: APP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has decided to review former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s decision to give the additional charge of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan’s (LJCP) secretary to the top court’s former registrar, Dr Faqir Hussain.
A three-judge bench – headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja – will also examine the appointment of LJCP’s incumbent secretary, Raja Ikhlaq Hussain, by the former top judge last year.
Hearing a five-year-old petition filed by the-then LJCP joint secretary, Malik Iqbal Ahmad, on October 28, 2009, the bench on Saturday asked whether any official – except for a federal government officer not below the rank of joint secretary – can be appointed LJCP’s secretary.
Ahmad had filed the petition against the rejection of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) and contended that he had not been considered for the post of LJCP secretary even though he had been working as LJCP’s senior most joint secretary.
Taking up the matter, which remained undecided during the tenure of the former chief justice, the bench directed Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mahmood to assist on this point and adjourned the hearing for two weeks.
Talking to The Express Tribune, a senior government official said that any decision of the court on this matter might affect the appointment of the incumbent LJCP secretary, who was a district and sessions judge prior to his appointment – in violation of Section 5 (1) of the Law & Justice Commission Ordinance 1979.
Section 5 (1) reads: “The commission shall have a separate secretariat to be headed by a secretary, who shall be an officer of the federal government not inferior in rank to a joint secretary to the federal government.”
The official, however, said that during the tenure of the former chief justice, the LJCP’s rules were amended and the chief justice was authorised to appoint anyone, including members of the bar, judicial officers, teachers etc, against the post of LJCP secretary.
Speaking on the issue, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Kamran Murtaza said whenever a rule contravenes any basic law (ordinance) then the law prevails as it is the basic principle.
Meanwhile, the top court has also started reviewing the former chief justice’s judgments against parliamentarians whose membership were suspended by entertaining petitions under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
The apex court on Friday also accepted for preliminary hearing a petition against the alleged misuse of sou motu power by former CJ and requested to set parameters for future use.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2014.
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