ISLAMABAD The Supreme Court on Thursday directed Attorney General Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq to inform the apex court about the government stance on the judges appointment in the Balochistan High Court as there is going to be a judicial crisis as all the judges would be retiring on September 5. The 17-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is hearing the 18th Amendment case. The bench directed Attorney General of Pakistan to talk to some quarter in order to resolve the issue on priority basis. The Chief Justice said that due to this judicial problem, the people of Balochistan would also suffer. The Attorney General informed the court that the matter is under consideration and the Federation is contemplating on it seriously. Justice Asif Khosa remarked that not only the Balochistan High Court but also other High Courts would have judges shortage as the 50 per cent of the judges would be retiring on September 15. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said, We had told Wasim Sajjad about this grave situation on July 26, 2010 and to do some brain storming, but 20 days have passed but nothing has happened. He added, We were expecting that it has triggered some action. He said that in Balochistan there would breakdown, as there will be no court in the province after September 5. Barrister Shahid Hamid, counsel for the Punjab government, pointed out that there was a genuine difficulty. Earlier, the Federations counsel Nasrullah Warriach said that the Executive had been vital role in the appointment of judges in the past. The Chief Justice inquired that whether the Parliamentary Committee falls in the jurisdiction of the Executive. Warraich replied that it doesnt make a difference, because the four members in the Parliamentary Committee would represent the Executive. Instead of dilating upon it further, he said that it might best be left for Raza Rabbani to give answer. Warriach adopted the arguments of Ibrahim Satti and K K Agha on Article 175-A. Justice Jawwad Khawaja said that there were so many contradictions in their arguments, and asked, Do you adopt them as well? Warriach quickly said, I adopt the good point in their statements. Warraich also mentioned that the existence of present judiciary was not possible without the relentless struggle of the lawyers community, but now some lawyers were against the elevation of some judges to the superior courts. The Chief Justice said that no lawyer has challenged the judges elevation so far. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk asked him, Are you representing the Federation or the bar councils? When Warriach was quoting some verse from Holy Quran, Justice Ramday stopped him and said that every day we quote verses of Quran and Hadith but do not act upon them, adding We would become a good nation if we implement them in our daily life. Salahuddin Gandapur, another federation counsel, remarked that the people have given great sacrifices for the supremacy of Parliament, democracy and the independence of judiciary. He said that the 1973 Constitution witnessed two Martial Laws. He said that the need for Article 175-A was felt because the people were not satisfied with the old method of judges appointment. Justice Ramday asked him to quote any judgment in which petitioner or the judgment has condemned the procedure of judges appointment, but criticised the steps taken for the appointment of judges in the superior courts. Iftikhar ul Haq, the Federations counsel, said that amendment in Constitution is not a simple task. He and another Federation counsel Mushtaq Masood also adopted the arguments of Wasim Sajjad and K K Agha, while Iftikhar Ahmed Mian would start pleading his case from Monday.