LAHORE The Supreme Court has turned down the decision of Parliamentary Committee which it took previously to reject the names of six additional judges referred to it by the Judicial Commission for giving them extension in service. The court held the Committee decision of not accepting the recommendations of the Commission as conflicting with the Constitutional provisions. The court turned down the reason recorded by the Committee against the six judges that they did not possess the required experience on the side of criminal cases. It is quite a flimsy and unsustainable objection, one of the judges held while citing from his own experience that he did not possess much of the experience on service law before entering the profession. A split emerged among the members of the committee, at a time when names of four LHC judges were dropped for extension. Two of the eight members supported the Commission recommendations. The decision came under fire at the public level generally and the legal fraternity particular as they found a result more of a political tug-of-war going at the national level than on any genuine ground. It was felt that the Committees decision to reject the Commissions recommendations somewhat mirrored a hostile attitude a party may have on losing a case or finding itself under hardship by the judiciary or on confronting this institution under the impression of superiority and offended by its decisions. Hence an impression was created about the judges appointments as being politicised. As to the question of confrontation, still some important cases are awaiting implementation by the executive and the NRO case is one of them. And the most recent example of it is that of FIA DG, whose removal the superior court had sought within three days but the government did nothing in this regard. The court has also called for the removal of all employees hired on contract after their retirement but the court directions have yet not been honoured fully. The background is also dotted by another episode when a Full Court of the SC, through an unprecedented move, passed a resolution seeking from the executive extension in the adhoc service of Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday and Justice Rahmat Hussain Jaffry. But the resolution was vehemently resented by the bars and some political quarters which forced the court to suspend the resolution. The latest move by SC has also attracted mixed reaction. Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association Punjab Bar Council have expressed their cautious reservations and wanted from the Parliamentary Committee to perform its duties independently in accordance with the Constitution, implying that its decision should also be given due regard. They also want the Commission to give due weight to the recommendations made by the High Court Chief Justice for appointment as judges. The Bar Councils said the Constitution had defined the limits of both sides which need to work independently and abhor confrontation and interference of the institutions with each other as not only against the spirit of Constitution but also detrimental to the democracy and democratic norms. The bars wanted the court not to interfere in the Constitutional authority of the committee. However, the question arises about the authority of the Commission and its recommendations if final decision is in the hand of the committee. In relation to the functioning of the Committee the same question arises. However, it is fact the Commission by its composition is in a better position to judge and assess the capability of the judges. But a question of superiority has come up which can be dealt by only creating a balance between the two.