IHC judges' case: SC reserves verdict on presidential reference
ISLAMABAD: The SC has reserved the verdict on presidential reference in IHC judges appointment case.
The Court on Friday began hearing a reference sent to it by President Asif Ali Zardari seeking a court advice to resolve a controversy over the elevation and appointment of Islamabad High Court judges.
A five-judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Tariq Parvez, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, was hearing the presidential reference.
Earlier on Thursday, the court had adjourned the hearing over the judges’ appointment case instructing the counsel for the petitioner to complete his arguments on Friday after lawyer for President Asif Ali Zardari, Barrister Wasim Sajjad, completed his arguments before the court.
The presidential reference raised 13 questions of public importance: whether the president, who is bound by oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, is obliged to make appointments which are not in accordance with the Constitution; what should be the manner, mode and criteria before the JC with respect to the nomination of a person as judge of the high court, the Supreme Court and the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) in terms of Article 175-A (8) of the Constitution; what should be the role of the JC and the PC under the Constitution with respect to appointment of judges in the superior judiciary and parameters for the PC to confirm a nominee of the JC; is there any restriction in the Constitution to reconsider the nomination sent by the JC; what should be the criteria for elevating a judge/chief justice of a high court to the Supreme Court; should their seniority as judge of the high court be considered for elevation to the SC or it should be their seniority as chief justice of the respective high court; whether the Constitution prohibits individual members of the JC from proposing the names of judges for appointment to the SC, high court and the FSC; can the PC under Article 175-A confirm or not confirm a nomination in accordance with the provisions and what is the true meaning of the word ‘confirm’; and whether by not providing an in-camera proceeding for the JC under Article 175-A of the Constitution, the intention of the legislature is not to ensure complete transparency and open scrutiny.
