'Judges' appointment procedure contains flaws'

ISLAMABAD The Supreme Court on Tuesday, while questioning the constitutional status of the Parliamentary Committee, said: We want to strengthen the parliamentary democratic system as the country cannot afford any more institutional confrontation, and added there was a need to look into the Constitution as a whole. The 17-member larger bench, with Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in the chair, was hearing the 18th amendment case here on Tuesday. Shahid Hamid, counsel for the Punjab government, resumed his arguments and told the bench that, the Parliamentary Committee, constituted by PM, would take over the function of the Prime Minister. The Chief Justice said that the scheme of judges appointment seems very good on paper but there are many practical flaws in it as four months have passed and still the Judicial Commission could not be formulated. He said that lot of preliminary work could have been done so far. Quoting Raza Rabbanis speech in the National Assembly and the Senate, Hamid said that the Constitutional Reform Committee talked about the independence of judiciary, as it was one of the basic features. Justice Iftikhar said that in Al-Jihad-I case primacy given to the opinion of CJP, while the Consultation with the Chief Justice was binding. Justice Saqib Nisar said that Hamid Khan had proposed Parliamentary Committee for the appointment of judges. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday explaining the background of this proposal, said that after the Martial Law the judges appointment in courts were manipulated as the large scale recruitment in High Courts were made and those who never appeared before the court were appointed HC judges. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that the Parliament was supreme and can make laws but the court has to judge them on the objective test. He said that the Federations counsel himself had stated during the proceeding good people cant become members of the Parliament. Justice Asif Khosa said that it was the influence of the ruling party in the persons choice for High Courts was pivotal. The ruling party interfered in the affairs of the judiciary. In Al-Jihad case, the Prime Ministers role was marginalised. The swing of the pendulum went to other side of the extreme. Therefore, both sides need to be discussed. Justice Jawwad questioned the counsel, Was there any conscious and deliberate exercise in the Rabbani Committee on judges case. Justice Khosa said that what the court had to do. Some difficult decision has to be taken. This was the action of this court that all judges in the Balochistan High Court had to resign. The Chief Justice asked, what kind of duty the Parliamentary Committee is performing? How the professionalism of the person to be appointed as judge in the superior courts would be checked? There are certain lapses that need to be taken care off. In the joint sitting of the Parliament members should notice them. He asked the counsel to highlight these flaws in his party. There are some grey areas that need to be resolved. There are some difficulties. Shahid Hamid said that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz does not see the oversight role of the Parliament in judges appointment. He said that the court needs to guide and together the system would work smoothly. The Chief Justice said that it is the joint effort to resolve the issue.