Sacking of PCO judges: Supreme Court returns PBC review petition

Registrar says that plea is time-barred, uses inappropriate language against judges.

Hasnaat Malik July 13, 2014


The Supreme Court has refused to entertain Pakistan Bar Council’s (PBC) review petition, which requested it to review the July 31, 2009 judgment regarding the removal of more than 100 PCO judges.

Former PBC vice chairman Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhry confirmed to The Express Tribune that the review petition has been returned by SC’s registrar office after raising several questions.

He said the SC office has objected that the review plea is not maintainable because it is time-barred and uses inappropriate language against judges. The apex court has also objected that the petitioner i.e. PBC, was not party to the 2009 case.

PBC vice chairman said they will challenge the SC’s registrar office’s objections by filing an appeal. He contended that the registrar’s office has no authority to decide the maintainability of review petition.

Earlier, SC registrar office also returned the petition of the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) on the same subject.

Although the top court has already rejected former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharaf’s review petition against the same judgment, PBC filed a 68-page review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution earlier this week.

The bar council contended that contempt proceedings could not be initiated against the superior courts’ judges as no precedent can be found. The review plea claimed that the July 31, 2009 judgement was tainted with bias as none of the removed judges was impleaded as party to the petitions.

The review petition requested the SC to lay down in clear terms that no judge of the superior judiciary once appointed can be removed except following the procedure laid down under Article 209 of the Constitution.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 13th, 2014.


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

Most Read