ISLAMABAD The axe of judicial reforms has only been fallen on superior courts while there is nothing in the 18th Amendment regarding the uplift of subordinate judiciary which is much related to dispensation of justice. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, one of the judges of the 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing various petitions against the 18th Amendment, remarked on Monday. The Federations counsel KK Agha presented the manifestos of PPP and PML-N before the 17-member bench wherein good governance, independence of judiciary and restoration of 1973 Constitution are common objectives. Agha told the bench that the incumbent Parliament had public mandate to bring constitutional amendment. Justice Khosa observed that Constitution was itself a manifesto. Justice Ramday observed that the mandate was used only for the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that good governance was part of every political partys manifesto but it was visible nowhere in the country, adding, I am not talking about incumbent Government but we can analyse the duration between 1975 to 2010 and the empirical data shows that good governance is still a far cry. To a query, Advocate General Punjab Khawaja Haris confirmed the Court that more than 25,000 writ petitions were filed only in Lahore Registry this year. Justice Jawwad observed that through good governance many cases could be solved in police stations and DCO offices. He further remarked, Introducing reforms within its rank is the first duty of the Government and then it should consider the same in bars and judiciary. During the course of hearing, the bench observed that the incumbent Parliament did not set aside the November 03 unconstitutional step taken by a dictator. The Chief Justice in his remarks said that it was the Supreme Courts judgement on 31st July that declared all unconstitutional steps taken after 3rd November as void ab initio including NRO. Until July 31 judgement, the action of 3rd November was not undone by the Parliament, however it did not validate that action and this contrary situation runs parallel, the CJ observed. The Federations Lawyer earlier had told the bench that whatever Parliament did was okay, adding that Court had no right to review its decisions. Agha further said, It was Parliament that had restored the judiciary through executive order. Justice Ramday asked, How the Parliament restored the judges? It even neither passed a resolution nor made any law in this regard. The Court also raised questions over a word 'parliamentary-oversight written in the minutes of the Committee to keep the Judicial Commission under parliamentary control. Justice Asif Khosa observed that independence of judiciary was worthless till impartial judges, adding that independence of judiciary was a tool while justice was an end. KK Agha told the Court that after thoughtful process new procedure for the appointment of judges was introduced. Justice Ramday remarked that minutes of the debate were speaking otherwise, adding that the Committee started its work in June 2009, while for the first time the point of judicial reforms came into discussion when the draft of the bill was almost prepared. The idea of a retired judge in the Judicial Commission was included at the final stage, he added. The 17-judge larger bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry asked the Federations lawyer regarding Raza Rabbani-led Committees finding that, besides revival of judicial system, had accepted the fact that the previous parliament while functioning under a dictator made objectionable changes in the Constitution and to remove such insertions in the Constitution was an important objective before the Constitutional Reforms Committee. While criticising Rabbani-led Committees report, Additional Attorney General KK Agha told the bench that the Rabbani-led Committees report was not a law or Constitution. But later in the support of his arguments, he said the 26-member Rabbani-led Committee was real representative of Parliament as almost all the parliamentary parties representatives were part of that committee. Agha said that Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution but the Court had no power to review the constitutional amendment. In the support of his argument, he gave reference of Hamid Khans book on Judicial Review of Constitution. It is pertinent to mention here that the author of that book (Hamid Khan) argued before the Court against the Article 175-A of the 18th Amendment and sought review from the Court but earlier Wasim Sajjad, leading counsel for the Federation, had also referred Hamid Khans book to the bench and claimed that it was against the judicial review of constitutional amendment. KK Agha is supposed to conclude his formulations regarding basic structure of the Constitution and other objections before 11:00 a.m. today (Tuesday).