ISLAMABAD The Prime Ministers role in the appointment of judges remained the main focus during the discussion in the Supreme Court as the 17-member larger bench resumed hearing in the 18th Amendment case on Tuesday. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday asked the Attorney General Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq that lawyers representing the Federation should clearly explain why new mode of appointment was inserted in the 18th Amendment. The principled role of the Prime Minister in the judges appointment would now be taken over by the Parliamentary Committee, he further asked. He added that now the role of president, prime minister, chief justice of Pakistan, two senior most judges, law minister and attorney general would be of no significant importance as the Parliamentary Committee would make its own decision. He said it was being argued that in many countries, including America, France, Italy, Australia and South Africa, the judges appointment was made through the commissions but was there any article 63-A in their constitutions? Justice Jawwad Khawaja asked, Will the members of the Parliamentary Committee be called chosen representatives or nominated persons? Justice Asif Khosa commented that they might be the people who had thought that instead of executive they should play role in judges appointment. He further remarked that in Al-Jihad Trust case this August, the court had minimised the PMs role in the appointment. He added, If it is curtailed through the Parliamentary Committee then why we are objecting to it. Justice Saqib Nisar said if Parliamentary Committee rejected a nominee of Judicial Commission then it would give reasons that should be justifiable. Justice Ramday said, Why are we saying that the Parliamentary Committee will give justifiable reasons? Justice Tariq Pervaiz said instead of parliamentary committee the judicial commission that comprises chief justice, two senior judges, law minister, attorney general and representative of lawyer community should have the right to reject or approve candidates for the appointment in superior court. Justice Sair Ali questioned what would be the Presidents power in judges appointment? Can he reject a name approved by the parliamentary committee? Justice Saqib Nisar asked the AG if any exception could be made in the parliamentary system to curtail the PMs power. Justice Khosa remarked that the Parliament is sovereign and it could always make exceptions. The parliamentary democratic form of the government was basic norm of the 1973 constitution that could not be changed even by the dictators, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry remarked this while hearing identical petitions challenging the 18th Amendment. The Chief Justice remarked the dictators in the past had abrogated the constitutions - 1956 and 1962. He said, We support democratic parliamentary form of government. He remarked that it was not the question that there were some areas where PMs advice was binding or not binding, but the point was that in the new mode the route was missing. He said that Article 175-A had eliminated the role of Prime Minister in the appointment of judges. Attorney General Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq in his arguments submitted that the Prime Minister had a role in the appointment of the judges, adding the parliament represented the will of the people through their chosen representatives and the Prime Minister was the leader of the representatives. The court while putting several questions asked the Attorney General to reply on them in todays (Wednesday) hearing.