.jpg)
Updated on
Summary
The Supreme Court adjourned hearing of the identical petitions against some clauses of the 18th amendment on Tuesday. A 17-member bench of Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heard the petitions.During the course of hearing, Justice Saqib Nisar remarked that no parliamentarian could become a member of the judicial commission if the judges appointment is carried out through the said commission. Hamid Khan, counsel of Supreme Court Bar Association, argued that nowhere in this world a committee were formed to appoint judges. Advocate Hamid Khan, counsel for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), said judiciary's independence was directly linked with the procedure of the appointment of judges. The concept of the judicial commission was borrowed from South Africa, Khan told the court. He further said that the Supreme Court in Pakistan has never quashed any constitutional amendment on the basis of the constitution's fundamentals. However, the Indian Supreme Court has been practicing judicial review and interpretation and has on different occasions invalidated constitutional amendments made by the parliament, Khan added. During the hearing, Justice Saqib Nisar said that in the United Kingdom, a member of the parliament cannot be involved in the process of judicial appointments. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said that in the past, the parliaments here have used legislation to render the Supreme Court's decisions ineffective. Earlier, on Monday, Hamid Khan said that the concept of the judicial commission was a violation of the Objectives Resolution. Only in a handful of countries do parliaments have a role in the appointments of judges, he said. CJ Chaudhry said, The clause regarding the rights of minorities was abolished from the Objective Resolution in 1985, terming the act as a criminal offence of negligence.He lauded the present government saying, The credit goes to the government which, after 25 years, took notice of the brazen act of removing the clause relating the minorities rights, adding Objective Resolution has always been the part to the Constitution. Hamid Khan averred that Gen (r) Ziaul Haq committed the offence of his own accord and it was quite criminal of the then Parliament which took no note of the grave offence of amending the Resolution. Meanwhile, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, lawyer of another petitioner, sought complete record of the 1972 constitutional process. He also told the court that he would be going abroad for treatment from June 14 to June 16. The CJ remarked that everyone would be given ample time as the matter is of great significance.
