ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court overturned on Friday the eight-member bipartisan Parliamentary Committee’s decision of rejecting one-year extension to service of six additional judges of the Lahore and Sindh high courts recommended by the Judicial Commission. A four-judge SC bench, comprising Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S. Khwaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez, issued the order after hearing two identical petitions challenging the PC’s decision of declining the JC’s recommendation.

The court directed the federal government to issue a notification endorsing extension of service of the six judges in line with the recommendations made by the Judicial Commission at a meeting last month.

The controversy over the powers of parliament and the judiciary had cropped up in the first week of last month when the Parliamentary Committee on judicial appointments, headed by Senator Nayyar Hussain Bokhari of the PPP, rejected the JC’s recommendations for a one-year extension in the service of four additional judges of the Lahore High Court — Justices Muhammad Yawar Ali, Syed Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, Mamoon Rashid Sheikh and Muhammad Farrakuh Irfan Khan. On March 1, the PC also rejected the JC’s recommendation for extension in service of Justice Mohammad Tasnim and Justice Salman Hamid of the Sindh High Court.

The JC had recommended the names of 24 additional judges of the LHC and six of the SHC. The PC approved the cases of 20 LHC judges and four SCH judges.

On Friday, former attorney general Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for petitioners Advocate Munir Hussain Bhatti and Advocate Kamran Murtaza, contested the argument of Deputy Attorney General K.K. Agha that the PC was constitutionally empowered to accept or reject recommendations of the JC. He argued that the JC had primacy over decisions of the PC.

The counsel said the commission was a forum which could rightly decide cases of judges.

A similar position was taken by Sindh High Court Bar Association president Anwar Mansoor Khan, another petitioner.

The counsel contended that the court had the authority to review constitutional amendments. They cited the names of some retired judges of Supreme Court who were not well versed in criminal code of procedure, but said it did not mean they were ineligible.

“There is no doubt about it. Before being elevated to the high court, I was not even very well aware of service laws, but it cannot be considered ineligibility of a judge,” Justice Jawad S. Khwaja said.

Makhdom Ali Khan argued that the PC was not authorised to review qualification or ability of any judge. The apex court could review the legal procedure, he added. The petitioners requested the court to set aside the PC’s decision and direct the federation to implement the JC’s recommendation in respect of the six judges.

At the last hearing on Thursday, the deputy attorney general had contended that the petitions questioning the PC’s role in rejecting the names of six additional judges were an attempt to cause prejudice over the pending proceedings related to the 18th Amendment. Parliament sovereignty undermined

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Asma Jehangir said that the SC judgment had seriously undermined the sovereignty of parliament. “It has struck down the spirit of the 19th Amendment which accommodated the concerns of the Supreme Court, but did not agree to bring the decisions of the Parliamentary Committee under judicial scrutiny,” she added. Ms Jehangir said facts placed on record showed that the process allowed by the Judicial Commission rather than of the Parliamentary Committee was bewildering. The adverse remarks made by the chief justices of high courts about the six additional judges had been simply overlooked. These judges, by all accounts, were of average ability and for that reason the JC, too, had merely extended their tenure, she added.

The SCBA president said even more disturbing was the fact that the Supreme Court had allowed ‘interested’ individuals to plead the case of their peers who by all means wanted to remain on the bench.

“Individuals who desperately seek judicial appointments, despite being evaluated as substandard, will only degrade the integrity of the judicial institution. It is not anyone’s right to be a judge and if the Parliamentary Committee is simply expected to bow to every decision of the Judicial Commission, then it has no role at all and the Constitution may as well simply give a few judges of the Supreme Court all powers to appoint anyone they please, whether competent or not,” she said.

Advocate Zafar Ali Shah, who himself remained a parliamentarian, however, said the apex court’s decision had nothing to do with the sovereignty of parliament. He described the judgment as timely and said it was a prerogative of the Supreme Court as it was custodian of the Constitution and had powers to interpret the Constitution.