The petitioner, through his counsel Arif Chaudhry, has moved the apex court to declare the appointments illegal and order the initiation of legal proceedings against those involved in the appointments. PHOTO: IHC WEBSITE
The effort of the petitioner is to stigmatise and scandalise the office of Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) chief justice, which should not be permitted by the top court in the larger interest of the judiciary. This was one of the IHC registrar’s statements on behalf of the court in a comprehensive reply submitted to the Supreme Court over a plea against 73 allegedly illegal appointments in the IHC.
A three-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, is hearing the petition, filed by former IHC Bar Association vice-president Chaudhry Muhammad Akram.
The petitioner, through his counsel Arif Chaudhry, has moved the apex court to declare the appointments illegal and order the initiation of legal proceedings against those involved in the appointments.
Last month, the country’s top court sought an explanation from the high court registrar over an audit report which declared all appointments made in the court in violation of criteria and merit.
The IHC registrar, submitting the reply, stated the petition under reply is “malicious” and “legally and factually baseless”, and also raises false accusations and is otherwise incompetent in view of Article 199 (5) of the constitution.
The reply further contends that an audit of the high court could not be conducted by the AGPR or other any other authority. It is to be noted that audit report had raised objections over all appointments made in the IHC.
The reply has also admitted that many other employees presently working in IHC were also promoted in higher grades in relaxation of rules for smooth functioning of the court. According to the reply, 11 officers were promoted in relaxation of rules.
“A prayer has been made for initiation of action against the [IHC CJ] in the instant case, which clearly establishes that it is not a writ in the nature of quo-warrato.”
The reply adds that similar appointments were made in 2008 by the then-chief justice of the IHC.
It adds that the powers of the CJ to relax rules and make appointment under rules 16 and 18 cannot be denied.
It is also submitted that there are presently 376 IHC employees, only 61 of whom were targeted by the petitioner.
The reply has also rejected the content of audit report, wherein questions were raised against the appointments.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 15th, 2015.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ