Who has the final say in judges’ appointments?
Parliamentary committee seeks review of SC decision, overruling the rejection of ad-hoc extensions.
ISLAMABAD:
A parliamentary committee on judicial appointments has decided to seek a review of the Supreme Court decision that overruled the committee’s rejection of a judicial commission proposal granting extension to half a dozen judges of the higher judiciary.
The decision is likely to escalate the simmering parliament-judiciary tussle.
Meeting here on Wednesday under the chairmanship of Senator Nayyer Bokhari, the eight-member panel decided to suggest the government to move a review petition in the Supreme Court.
Bokhari told media the committee, comprising four members each from the government and opposition parties, would write to the prime minister, suggesting that the federation must pursue the review petition.
The Supreme Court last week overruled a decision by the parliamentary committee to reject nominations of some individuals for appointments as judges in provincial high courts of Sindh and Punjab. The nominations were made by a judicial commission headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
The short order by the Supreme Court has renewed afresh a controversy on whether the judiciary or the parliament should have the final say in the appointments of judges. The issue compelled the government last year to enact a constitutional amendment to settle this dispute.
Though the 19th constitutional amendment, approved by the parliament in December last year, declared that the parliamentary committee would be the final authority to accept or reject nominations by the judicial commission, the Supreme Court’s decision last week shocked many.
The most ‘outrageous’ reaction was by President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jahangir who voiced concern against the verdict, saying it was tantamount to undermining the parliament’s authority.
The Supreme Court might have not properly judged the reasons for which the committee had decided not to extend the service of six high court judges, said Bokhari.
The Supreme Court had asked the parliament to review a two-pronged mechanism for the appointment of judges envisaged in the 18th constitutional amendment, with an aim to keep the final say with the judicial commission.
The court said the parliamentary committee must give reasons if it rejects nominations by the judicial commission, in a fresh mechanism.
The parliamentary panel did not agree with the suggestion, however, and the 19th amendment envisaged the committee would retain the powers of either accepting or rejecting the nominations by the judicial body.
Echoing her earlier criticism of the Supreme Court decision, SCBA president told media in Quetta on Wednesday that the verdict wasn’t correct and lawyers would never accept ad hoc appointments in the judiciary.
Over the weekend, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told columnists in Lahore that the parliament was the only institution empowered to amend the constitution, in a veiled reference to the Supreme Court decision.
Experts said the issue might pitch the fragile government against the increasingly independent judiciary – a confrontation that can have a lasting impact on the country’s beleaguered politics.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 10th, 2011.
A parliamentary committee on judicial appointments has decided to seek a review of the Supreme Court decision that overruled the committee’s rejection of a judicial commission proposal granting extension to half a dozen judges of the higher judiciary.
The decision is likely to escalate the simmering parliament-judiciary tussle.
Meeting here on Wednesday under the chairmanship of Senator Nayyer Bokhari, the eight-member panel decided to suggest the government to move a review petition in the Supreme Court.
Bokhari told media the committee, comprising four members each from the government and opposition parties, would write to the prime minister, suggesting that the federation must pursue the review petition.
The Supreme Court last week overruled a decision by the parliamentary committee to reject nominations of some individuals for appointments as judges in provincial high courts of Sindh and Punjab. The nominations were made by a judicial commission headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
The short order by the Supreme Court has renewed afresh a controversy on whether the judiciary or the parliament should have the final say in the appointments of judges. The issue compelled the government last year to enact a constitutional amendment to settle this dispute.
Though the 19th constitutional amendment, approved by the parliament in December last year, declared that the parliamentary committee would be the final authority to accept or reject nominations by the judicial commission, the Supreme Court’s decision last week shocked many.
The most ‘outrageous’ reaction was by President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jahangir who voiced concern against the verdict, saying it was tantamount to undermining the parliament’s authority.
The Supreme Court might have not properly judged the reasons for which the committee had decided not to extend the service of six high court judges, said Bokhari.
The Supreme Court had asked the parliament to review a two-pronged mechanism for the appointment of judges envisaged in the 18th constitutional amendment, with an aim to keep the final say with the judicial commission.
The court said the parliamentary committee must give reasons if it rejects nominations by the judicial commission, in a fresh mechanism.
The parliamentary panel did not agree with the suggestion, however, and the 19th amendment envisaged the committee would retain the powers of either accepting or rejecting the nominations by the judicial body.
Echoing her earlier criticism of the Supreme Court decision, SCBA president told media in Quetta on Wednesday that the verdict wasn’t correct and lawyers would never accept ad hoc appointments in the judiciary.
Over the weekend, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told columnists in Lahore that the parliament was the only institution empowered to amend the constitution, in a veiled reference to the Supreme Court decision.
Experts said the issue might pitch the fragile government against the increasingly independent judiciary – a confrontation that can have a lasting impact on the country’s beleaguered politics.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 10th, 2011.