ISLAMABAD One of the Federations lawyers, Ibraheem Satti, through his irrelevant but thoughtful arguments Wednesday enlightened the 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing the 18th Amendment case that Parliamentary Committee would function just like a post office. Satti told the Court that the Parliamentary Committee established under newly inserted Article 175-A would perform its duty just like a post office and had no significant role in the judges appointment process. Every member of the bench wrote down his amazing formulation. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday asked Satti whether it was the Federations stance or again it was only a slip of tongue. Satti replied that he was presenting the Federation but later adopting the piece of advice of Justice Javed Iqbal he retreated from his stance, saying that it was a slip of tongue. Everyone sitting in the Courtroom Number 1 including Justice Ramday laughed at this stage. Satti argued that the judiciary was directly attacked through 5th and 6th Constitutional Amendments but the Court did not strike down those Amendments. The Chief Justice remarked, Due to such decisions, we faced 1977-like situation when the country remained deprived of Parliament and democracy for 11 years. Justice Ramday remarked whenever the assemblies after electoral process overruled public opinion, streets witnessed bloodshed. The incompetent people were inducted into the judiciary during 1994-95 and many of them even were not aware of the whereabouts of the high courts but through Al-Jihad Case the Supreme Court blocked the way of such inductions, he added. The Court asked the Federations counsel not to discuss irrelevant things but he surprised the 17-member bench when he read a Hadith before the bench regarding three types of judges. The same Hadith was earlier read by his boss Babar Awan before a five-member bench headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk in NRO implementation case. The Court asked what was the relevancy between this Hadith and Article 175-A. The Chief Justice told Satti that there was no dispute on that Hadith and asked him to remain relevant. Satti argued that law minister and members of the parliament appoint judges in Germany. The CJ asked him regarding other common things between Germany and Pakistan. Likewise Satti said that judges tenure was equal with parliamentarians in China. Justice Asif Khosa remarked that every country had its own appointment procedure to achieve the desired goals, adding it was possible that the Parliament had changed old system for this purpose. But Satti insisted that old system of the judges appointment was absolutely corrupt. Satti submitted that independence of judiciary was not hampered with judges appointment procedure but it was affected after oath of a nominee. He also said that it was obligatory to constitute a committee under Articles 238 and 239 of the Constitution. He said that discussion was not obligatory and it could not decide the Committees status. The Constitutional Amendment with its immediate effect was enacted as Constitution and it was necessary for everyone to follow the same, he concluded.