FSC dismisses plea against appointment of women judges

Petition terming the appointment of women lawyers as judges in Pakistan as un-Islamic has been dismissed by the FSC.


Rana Tanveer September 30, 2010
FSC dismisses plea against appointment of women judges

LAHORE: A full bench of the Federal Shariat Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking a bar on the appointment of women lawyers as judges in Pakistan, terming these appointments un-Islamic. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Agha Rafique, observed that that no bar could be put on women against their right to become judges at all levels of the judiciary.

Advocate Rab Nawaz filed the petition saying that appointing women lawyers as judges was discrimination against male lawyers and a violation of Islamic teachings. He said that males were given preference over females in the Quran therefore women judges should be restrained from continuing with their work.

He said that the same issue had come before the court in 1982, when the court allowed the appointment of women as judges, but he could not challenge the matter then for certain reasons.

Nawaz prayed that the court impose a ban on appointment of women as judges.

No woman has ever been a judge of the Supreme Court. There are currently only two women working as judges, both in the Sindh High Court. In 2007, National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) issued instructions for appointment of women judges in the subordinate judiciary. Following those instructions, 79 additional posts were sanctioned for female judges in the country. These 79 posts included 35 posts sanctioned by the Punjab government, 24 by the Sindh government, 13 by the then NWFP government and 7 by the Balochistan government.

In October 2006, the LHC announced appointments of 100 civil judges-cum-judicial magistrates and allocated five percent quota for women.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 30th, 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