ISLAMABAD - The Federal government on Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its verdict of declaring the decision of the Parliamentary Committee about the appointment of judges as null and void. Deputy Attorney General (DAG) KK Agha has filed the petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Federal govt. The petition maintained that verdict of the court against the Parliamentary Committees decision over judges appointment was against the Constitution and it should be reviewed. The review petition pleaded that the apex court through its March 21 verdict has re-written a part of the Constitution (Article 175A) by going beyond its power of interpreting the Constitution under the doctrine of judicial review. It contented that the apex court had erred in holding that the Parliamentary Committee was not part of the Parliament stressing on the contrary it was part of the Parliament that represents the will of the people. It also questioned one of the reasons of the detailed judgement that only the JC as legally minded people were in the best position to assess candidates for judgeship. 'This is an incorrect and flawed assumption. For example in the US judges are appointed through the legislature, yet there is still an independent judiciary in the US, the petition contended. The judgement has amended and re-written the Constitution by allowing a matter to be taken up before the Constitutional process has been completed, rendering the role of the PC virtually meaningless and redundant in the new judicial appointment process under Article 175-A of the Constitution and thereby prejudicing the challenges against the Constitution 18th Amendment still pending before the court. The petition said the PC was a safety net therefore it rightly objected to candidates whom it considered on the information received were unfit for high judicial office. If the PCs decision is subject to judicial review, as this court has found, then there should be no objection to the action taken by the PC, which if found to be incorrect can be rectified on review, the petition added. It also stated that the PC was only attempting to ensure that only the best and most competent persons were appointed as judges under the new system pursuant to its Constitutional duty. The verdict also erred in allowing a judge who was novice in the main legal stream, who had limited knowledge of the law and lacked commitment and dedication to continue as judge, the petition pleaded saying a person who lacked commitment and dedication (character traits) was unlikely to improve on his already limited knowledge of the law. As such the impugned judgment failed to protect the citizens fundamental right of access to justice, it stated. Referring to the objections and adverse character traits raised by the Chief Justices of the respective high courts against the six additional judges, the review petition contended that the JC by approving their extension failed to apply its judicial mind to each and every case and dealt with each case in a cursory manner. As such the PC was fully entitled to carefully review all the information before it in breach of there fundamental rights of access to justice, it said.