ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) has made a name to the superior judiciary to take care of unity following a storm engendered by a letter written by Peshawar Excessive Court docket (PHC) Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth to Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed over not being elevated as decide of the Supreme Court docket.
Speaking to The Specific Tribune, PBC Vice Chairman Abid Saqi stated, “Superior court judges must avoid any personal controversy and maintain unity to fight the battle of rule of law in the country.”
The PBC vice chairman stated that regardless of a number of makes an attempt, non-democratic forces couldn’t weaken the judiciary however any impression about battle amongst judges might fulfil their goal. “Therefore, judges should try their best to avoid any personal controversy.”
Saqi who had warned the federal authorities a couple of sturdy agitation in case a presidential reference was filed for the elimination of Justice Seth on account of his judgment to award demise sentence to former army ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf within the treason case, didn’t draw back from opposing the PHC chief justice’s current act of writing a letter to the CJP in opposition to appointment of three judges within the SC over the past two years.
Saqi stated that the precept of seniority didn’t apply whereas appointing an SC decide, including that the apex courtroom already held that “elevation of a high court judge to the SC is a fresh appointment”.
Likewise, he endorsed the Supreme Court docket Bar Affiliation (SCBA) president’s view that “Sindh High Court Chief Justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh is more senior than Justice Seth”.
Likewise, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, who has lately been elevated to the SC, was appointed as an LHC decide in Feb 2010 whereas Justice Seth was nominated as a PHC decide in August 2011.
Nonetheless, the attorneys are divided over the elevation of judges on the precept of seniority. One part of the authorized neighborhood has a constant view that seniority shouldn’t be the one yardstick and the factors must also embrace competence and repute.
The Hamid Khan Group is opposing the current appointments to the SC because it believes that every time elevation is being made in violation of the seniority precept, a conflict amongst judges takes place.
PBC consultant Rasheed A Rizvi, who’s a senior member of the Hamid Khan Group, additionally believes that appointment of SC judges needs to be made on the precept of seniority relatively than private liking.
Rizvi wonders that the decide who convicted a dictator has not been elevated however a decide who annulled his conviction has been appointed as the brand new SC decide. He states that as in comparison with the previous, variations amongst superior courtroom judges have elevated for various causes.
Nonetheless, Rizvi states that the function of the chief justice is at all times vital to finish any controversy amongst judges.
He additionally proposes that each chief justice whereas forming bigger benches in high-profile circumstances ought to embrace senior-most judges to keep away from giving the impression that a number of judges are being included in particular benches as a result of they’re near the highest decide.
Nonetheless, Rizvi acknowledged that conflicts amongst judges at all times continued up to now besides through the period of former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
It’s witnessed that in former CJ Chaudhry’s tenure (March 2009 to December 2013), superior judiciary emerged as essentially the most highly effective establishment within the nation and there was no main inside conflict amongst judges.
Nonetheless, critics of his period say that there was no dissenting voice amongst judges in crucial judicial issues.
Hardly a number of judges issued dissenting notes in high-profile circumstances throughout that interval.
Likewise, additionally they criticised that why competent judges who had been eliminated by way of the July 31, 2009 judgment weren’t reconsidered for appointment.
Quickly after Chaudhry’s retirement, a rainbow superior judiciary emerged whereby each decide brazenly began expressing his/her view in high-profile circumstances. The identical state of affairs was witnessed within the 21st structure modification case judgment whereby each decide expressed his personal view concerning the Constitutional points.
Senior attorneys gave credit score to ex-CJP Nasirul Mulk who had supplied a pleasing environment to judges to precise their views in high-profile circumstances.
Nonetheless, through the tenures of former chief justices Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Mian Saqib Nisar, a piece of attorneys complained {that a} handful of judges had been made a part of benches which heard high-profile circumstances.
Likewise, a number of judges, who normally dissent with the highest decide, had been sidelined and never made a part of the particular benches.
Former CJP Nisar additionally confronted criticism over the formation of benches through which a number of chosen judges had been being included to adjudicate delicate constitutional points.
It’s also witnessed that the SC judges had been divided over elevation of Justice Naqvi.
Similar is mirrored in Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s dissenting notice which he introduced as a member of the Judicial Fee of Pakistan (JCP) relating to elevation of Justice Naqvi.
Justice Isa wrote in his notice: “A number of illustrious brethren who are judges of the Supreme Court and have worked with him (Justice Naqvi) at the Lahore High Court have expressed negative views about him.”
Nonetheless, minutes of the JCP assembly revealed that Justice Umar Ata Bandial had supported the nomination of Justice Naqvi, saying that he had labored with him (Justice Naqvi) within the LHC and located him “sharp, competent and a brilliant judge having balanced views in criminal cases”.
Justice Isa in his dissent notice had endorsed parliamentary committee’s earlier concern over low elevation price of judges to SC from smaller provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory
(ICT).
The present provincial illustration of judges within the apex courtroom is: eight are from Punjab, six from Sindh, two from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (Ok-P), one from Balochistan and none from the ICT.
The final decide appointed to the apex courtroom from Balochistan was five-and-a-half years in the past and from Sindh and Ok-P round two years in the past.
Justice Isa in his notice acknowledged that the Structure doesn’t mandate appointments by province/territory, nonetheless, misgivings generated when all different provinces and the ICT had been ignored for no discernible purpose and chief justices and senior judges had been bypassed.
He stated disregarding senior judges was tantamount to expressing no- confidence in them which additionally undermined their dedication to the establishment.
