Changa Manga, Murree echo in 18th amendment hearing

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has said that Changa Manga and Murree are ground realities of our politics. “Is this tradition bound to be repeated in the appointment of top judges? If they get authority to appoint judges, then every (political) party will demand its cut,” the CJP remarked during the hearing of identical petitions seeking annulment of certain parts of the recently-adopted 18th amendment.

He said under the new procedure for appointment of top judges, the parliamentary committee has the ascendancy over the judicial commission because the committee can reject any name proposed by the commission without assigning any reason. He said that with the passage of the 18th amendment, the prime minister enjoys most powers but (ironically) he has no role in the matter of judges’ appointment.  “This way, the parliamentary system will evolve into a presidential one,” the CJP ruminated.

Justice Asif Khosa interjected that members of the parliamentary committee will be answerable to the appointing authority with no personal independence.

The 17-member larger bench continued hearing federation’s lawyer Wasim Sajjad who picked up the thread of his arguments by stating that the new procedure set out for appointment of judges under Article 175-A, the chief justice enjoys the upper hand for being the head of the judicial commission.

At this point, Justice Ramday asked as to why the need for procedural change arose if the (chief justice’s) authority remained the same. The chief justice remarked that the appointment of superior judges could be delayed because the parliamentary committee would be made up of representatives with disparate ideals.

Murree and Changa Manga are ground realities of our politics, the CJP pursued, “and one needs to offer ministries to garner support. When there are openings, the people scramble for them. Is the matter of judges’ appointment destined to witness a repeat of similar tradition?”

The CJP advised Wasim Sajjad to tell parliament that issues must have a practical solution.

Justice Saqib Nisar inquired as to what will happen if the commission resends the same names which had earlier been rejected by the committee? Wasim Sajjad argued that the commission cannot resend the same names. Justice Nisar pointed out that the committee is not bound to assign any reason for rejecting names, to which Wasim Sajjad said that in his personal view the committee should state the reasons in writing for doing so.

Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali told Wasim Sajjad not to give his personal views but submit the federation’s standpoint. Justice Nisar interjected that there must be legal ground for rejecting the proposed names.

Wasim Sajjad said he could submit the reply after seeking guidance from the government, but the question of legal grounds was a difficult one.  he hearing was adjourned until Monday.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 30^th, 2010.