ISLAMABAD The present judiciary is also reflecting the will of people but this reality is overlooked by the legislators during the process of 18th Constitutional Amendment as, 175-A of this Amendment is against the independence of judiciary that ensures the fundamental rights of citizens, Hamid Khan, the counsel for various bar associations, said this while arguing before the 17-member bench of the Supreme Court on Monday. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, resumed the hearing of 23 petitions challenging various clauses of the 18th Amendment on Monday. During the course of hearing, majority of the judges raised important questions and expressed their concerns regarding discriminatory change in article 175 of the Constitution. Justice Jawwad Khawaja remarked, The Charter of Democracy (CoD) was an accord between two political parties and thus it does not enjoy a legal status. Justice Saqib Nisar remarked that through the Parliamentary Committees back-biting of the superior judiciarys judges was a very apathetic aspect of this process. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday observed that due to the fault of an individual the entire system could not be blamed. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali asked the counsel of bar associations, Is this notion true that double standards were adopted while amending the article 175-A of the Constitution. Hamid replied, Yes adding that without independent judiciary there is no fundamental right. He argued that new amendment has disrupted the idea of separation of judiciary from executive and on the other hand it excluded the Chief Executive (Prime Minister) and the cabinet from the process of appointments as, under the new arrangements the Parliamentary Committee would directly send the summary to President. But as per Constitution President is bound to consult Chief Executive, he said. The exclusion of judicial consent, PM and Cabinets role in the appointments process is directly conflicting with the basic features of the Constitution, Hamid said. Articles 90, 48 and 91 were overlooked while introducing this amendment. Khan explained that article 48 binds the President to consult Chief Executive (PM), article 91 describes the cabinets role in appointment process while article 90 makes the PM as Chief Executive. But unfortunately, Hamid said, this chain has been disrupted through this amendment, he noted. Hamid Khan further argued that the idea of Parliamentary Committee was not applicable in South Asian countries especially in the Sub-Continent due to its complex nature. He said that the US system was also not much acceptable for many even in the US but our social-economic culture is entirely different and we could not afford such hectic process. If Parliamentary Committee would allow continuing its function, things would be delayed and independence of judiciary would be compromised, he opined. While hearing the arguments of Advocate Hamid Khan, Justice Javed Iqbal asked, Why the lawyers are questioning the appointment of judges through the Judicial Commission despite the fact that they themselves floated this idea. Khan held that the Judicial Commission proposed by the lawyers was not supposed to comprise of Law Minister and Attorney General. Hamid Khan further told the bench that after the CoD some radical changes have come in the judiciary and the present judiciary was also reflective of the public will. Both the days, March 9, 2007, and November 3, 2008 were the hallmarks in the judicial history of the country but during the legislation process the Constitutional Committee overlooked such facts. It is relevant to mention here that so far, only one petitioner, Advocate Nadeem Ahmed, has completed his arguments before the court since the last hearing held three weeks ago. The same bench also heard the review petitions filed by the government and other applicants against the courts verdict in the NRO case. The hearing of 18th amendment case would resume today.