ISLAMABAD The Supreme Court directed Additional Attorney General KK Agha on Tuesday to seek instructions from Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani regarding the appointment of judges in the Balochistan High Court through Judicial Commission under newly inserted Article 175-A of the 18th Amendment. The 17-member larger bench of the apex court hearing Additional Advocate General KK Agha on 18th Amendment and formation of Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges asked about the upcoming situation in Balochistan where four additional judges would retire next month. In such a situation where no senior judge is available, how the Judicial Commission would initiate process of judges appointment, the bench asked. Agha was unable to satisfy the bench, saying that it was a serious proposition, however the Chief Justice asked him to take instructions from the Prime Minister on this issue. The Court also sought definition of parliamentary committee from the Federation. The Court observed that a lot of changes occurred in the judicial system after November 3 while such changes were ignored during the formation process of the 18th Amendment. In his remarks, the Chief Justice said that the suggestions regarding change in appointment process and other judicial reforms were made in the past by bar counsels related to that specific background while post-November 3 scenario was quite different. Today bar counsels, Hamid Khan, Akram Sheikh, Rasheed Rizvi and others are arguing before the Court against new procedure and they termed it against the independence of judiciary and separation of power doctrine, the Chief Justice observed. Justice Tassadaq Hussain Jillani remarked that security of tenure and exercise of power without any fear and pressure were part of independence of judiciary under Article 175 (3). Earlier, KK Agha had defended the Judicial Commissions composition. He has requested if Article 175-A does not impinge on any other article or provision of the Constitution then it should be remained. To a query of the bench, he replied that Article 175-3 deals with separation of power doctrine and it has nothing to do with appointment of judges. He said that old system was much criticised so it was changed. Justice Ramday said that it was not a viable option, saying that even the Holy Prophets of God were not spared of criticism. The Chief Justice asked, Tell us a single example from any other country of the world except USA where judiciary and executive function together during the process of judges appointment. Agha quoted British system and claimed that Lord Chancellor had final authority in the appointment of judges in UK. The Court observed that Lord Chancellor was not a final authority in the appointment of superior courts judges. Justice Ramday said that executive role in the appointment of judges had been gradually narrowed down in UK while it was being enhanced in Pakistan. Justice Ghulam Rabbani remarked, We should be realistic and understand that our background is different from UK. One should realise how Patwari and SHOs are being appointed solely on political basis in our country. Justice Saqib Nisar also observed that civil servants and parliamentarians involvement were strictly prohibited in judicial commission in UK. The Chief Justice asked Agha, What are the objectives of separation of power doctrine? What does Constitution want to ensure? Why the presidential type of government was transferred to parliamentary form of government under public demand? Agha replied that it was for the independence of judiciary and added, Through Article 175-A we have ensured independence of judiciary. Justice Asif Khosa came to rescue KK Agha and observed that separation of power doctrine suggested that judicial functions should be separated from executive while the process of consultation of appointment was not a part of it, adding that 175-3 originated from the time when executive magistrate were working in the courts but later judicial functions were separated from those of executive through 175 (3). The court would resume hearing of 18th Amendment today.