LAHORE - The constitutional experts have floated a suggestion to restore the judges saying that the parliament should pass a comprehensive resolution declaring November 3 steps extra-constitutional because in this way the judges would stand restored automatically. They said Pervez Musharraf after imposing emergency on November 3 introduced the Provisional Constitutional Order 1 of 2007, the Constitutional (amendment) Order 5 of 2007, the Constitutional (amendment) Order 7 of 2007 and Oath of office (judges) Order, 2007 to make so-called amendments in the constitution and safeguard PCO judges. They said these amendments had no legal effect since an individual who had no authority and jurisdiction to do so promulgated them. Therefore a resolution would make it clear that these 'laws' are not the part of constitution and the matter would be closed once for all times to come. They were of the view that in case the resolution is moved specifically to the extent of judges that would not solve the issue entirely and certain steps would also be taken to counter effects of emergency and PCO. Azhar Siddiuqi Advocate and Chairman Judicial Activism panel pointed out that rules 157 to 169 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly grant a right and authority to the assembly to make a declaration and also to command the Executive to take action on resolutions passed by it. The Speaker has the power and jurisdiction under rule 169 to direct the Division concerned to implement the directions contained in the passed resolution. In this way the Judges, working on November 2, 2007 would automatically stand restored to their original status. They pointed out that a comprehensive resolution would also make clear the status Article 270-AAA under which Pervez Musharraf had given protection to these judges. The Parliament is a sovereign body. It has the right and scope to declare the above as extra constitutional. They have also opposed any constitutional package at this juncture because they think it would further confuse the matter. Any constitutional package to fix the tenure of service of Chief Justice would be vague, illegal and based on bad intention. They said the term of office of a superior court Judge is fixed in the constitution in the form of retirement age irrelevant of fact that whether he is Chief Justice or not. They said the presumption that the terms of office of Chief Election Commission, is equitable with the terms of office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is baseless and an attempt to injure the independence of judiciary. They said the resolution and constitutional amendment are two different and distinct issues and cannot be intermingled. Any constitutional amendment required a procedure as provided in the Constitution in Article 238 and 239.