Lawyers stunned by decision to retire two SHC judges
Sindh High Court has only 17 judges, though it should have 40.
KARACHI:
Many lawyers are unhappy with a parliamentary committee’s decision on Tuesday to reject extensions in the tenure of two Sindh High Court judges - Justice Muhammad Tasnim and Justice Salman Hamid.
The SHC is supposed to have 40 judges but now it only has 17. “A crisis has emerged in the Sindh High Court,” said Haider Imam Rizvi, who is the honorary secretary of the Karachi Bar Association. “The number of judges has been going down day by day.” He pointed out that the extensions in the tenure of nine more judges will crop up again in March.
Tuesday was the last working day for the two judges. No cases will be fixed before them for Wednesday. Both judges commanded the respect of lawyers for their competence and honesty, approach to the law and command over their respective fields of expertise.
Rejecting them was an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and independent judges, remarked Barrister Farogh Naseem, who is considered an expert on constitutional law. “The judiciary alone should be allowed to appoint judges and the introduction of a parliamentary committee has been creating confusion and legal lacunae from day one,” he observed. “It is unfortunate and basically wrong. These experiments will damage the legal system and the major affectees will be litigants and lawyers.”
The bar association’s Rizvi backed this stance by saying that while the parliamentary committee was empowered under the 19th Amendment to accept or reject recommendations for judges, it was also required to give strong reasons for rejecting those made by the Judicial Commission. He gave the example of the case of judges of the Lahore High Court; the parliamentary committee’s reasons recorded were found to be inadequate and its decision was suspended. “This could happen in the case of these two judges as well if anyone approaches the apex court [Supreme Court of Pakistan],” Rizvi said.
Meanwhile, the SHC revised its sitting of judges and three judges were recalled from circuit benches to the principal seat of Karachi. These judges are justices Maqbool Baqar, Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Salman Hamid (whose recommendation for an extension in tenure was rejected).
Justice Tasnim enjoyed an exceptionally good reputation among lawyers. His daily disposal of cases was extraordinary for his command over the law, a lawyer said. He was extremely good in dictating judgments and 90 per cent of them were upheld by the Supreme Court, something that established his competence and legal acumen, a source said.
Justice Tasnim had no backlog of cases and when he left his chamber he did not have any judgements pending, unlike some judges of the past who left hundreds of judgements reserved which had to then be heard afresh and decided later. If he reserved a judgement, he used to clear it in a week. “His removal was politically motivated,” said a senior lawyer, a former secretary of the SHC Bar Association.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 23rd, 2011.
Many lawyers are unhappy with a parliamentary committee’s decision on Tuesday to reject extensions in the tenure of two Sindh High Court judges - Justice Muhammad Tasnim and Justice Salman Hamid.
The SHC is supposed to have 40 judges but now it only has 17. “A crisis has emerged in the Sindh High Court,” said Haider Imam Rizvi, who is the honorary secretary of the Karachi Bar Association. “The number of judges has been going down day by day.” He pointed out that the extensions in the tenure of nine more judges will crop up again in March.
Tuesday was the last working day for the two judges. No cases will be fixed before them for Wednesday. Both judges commanded the respect of lawyers for their competence and honesty, approach to the law and command over their respective fields of expertise.
Rejecting them was an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and independent judges, remarked Barrister Farogh Naseem, who is considered an expert on constitutional law. “The judiciary alone should be allowed to appoint judges and the introduction of a parliamentary committee has been creating confusion and legal lacunae from day one,” he observed. “It is unfortunate and basically wrong. These experiments will damage the legal system and the major affectees will be litigants and lawyers.”
The bar association’s Rizvi backed this stance by saying that while the parliamentary committee was empowered under the 19th Amendment to accept or reject recommendations for judges, it was also required to give strong reasons for rejecting those made by the Judicial Commission. He gave the example of the case of judges of the Lahore High Court; the parliamentary committee’s reasons recorded were found to be inadequate and its decision was suspended. “This could happen in the case of these two judges as well if anyone approaches the apex court [Supreme Court of Pakistan],” Rizvi said.
Meanwhile, the SHC revised its sitting of judges and three judges were recalled from circuit benches to the principal seat of Karachi. These judges are justices Maqbool Baqar, Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Salman Hamid (whose recommendation for an extension in tenure was rejected).
Justice Tasnim enjoyed an exceptionally good reputation among lawyers. His daily disposal of cases was extraordinary for his command over the law, a lawyer said. He was extremely good in dictating judgments and 90 per cent of them were upheld by the Supreme Court, something that established his competence and legal acumen, a source said.
Justice Tasnim had no backlog of cases and when he left his chamber he did not have any judgements pending, unlike some judges of the past who left hundreds of judgements reserved which had to then be heard afresh and decided later. If he reserved a judgement, he used to clear it in a week. “His removal was politically motivated,” said a senior lawyer, a former secretary of the SHC Bar Association.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 23rd, 2011.