High drama in courtroom 1


Qaiser Zulfiqar July 20, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Petitioner Shahid Orakzai created a furore in the Supreme Court when he flung his copy of the constitution to the floor while making his argument. After a sharp admonishment by the bench, however, Orakzai apologised.

Orakzai is among the 21 petitioners who have challenged provisions of the 18th amendment before the Supreme Court. A 17-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is currently hearing these petitions. Orakzai had flung the book to the floor to illustrate to the court what he would do if he were confronted with a situation where he would have to choose between holding on to a copy of the constitution and a copy of the Holy Quran.

Justice Saqib Nisar reacted sharply: “You have humiliated not only the constitution but the entire judiciary; you should learn to respect the constitution before you begin arguing.” Simultaneously, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ghulam Rabbani threatened to issue a contempt of court notice against Orakzai and to summon the police. At this, Orakzai backtracked immediately and offered an unconditional apology to the court, which was accepted.

Earlier, Orakzai had argued before the court that the changed procedure of appointing judges had rendered the Supreme Judicial Council ineffective and that the 18th amendment had destroyed the parliamentary system.

In response, Justice Javed Iqbal observed that Islam emphasised the importance of  the consultative process, saying that the role of the parliament and the commissions could not be undermined.

Orakzai also took exception with the establishment of the Islamabad High Court, arguing that the federal capital would need to be given the status of a province before it could be entitled to a separate high court.

Next to plead after Orakzai were petitioners Aslam Khaki, Hashmat Habib and Zulfiqar Bhutta. Khaki submitted that the parliament has the authority to amend the constitution but has no power to alter its basic structure. He also asked the court to examine whether the constitutionally mandated procedure for amending the constitution was followed.

Habib, on the other hand, pleaded that the induction of the law minister and the attorney general in the judicial commission militated against the independence of judiciary and the featuring of the parliamentary committee has politicised the procedure of judicial appointments.

Meanwhile, Zulfiqar Bhutta, the counsel for former minorities minister J. Sakik, told the court that the election procedure prescribed in the 18th amendment violates the rights of minorities, which is a constitutionally guaranteed provision.

Finally, it was federation counsel Waseem Sajjad’s turn who asked the court for more time to prepare his defence of the 18th amendment. Acceding to this request, the bench told the federation’s other counsels to also have their arguments ready by Monday. The hearing was then adjourned till Wednesday (today).

Published in The Express Tribune, July 21st, 2010.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ