ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Tuesday reiterated that Parliament had the authority to make amendments to the Constitution
This reiteration by the SCBA President Mian Muhammad Rauf Atta was in response to a letter received from the Association’s former presidents.
Rauf said the SCBA had consistently advocated the independence and supremacy of institutions, including the Parliament, and they wanted to make it abundantly clear that the Constitution, in its present form, was the supreme law of the land, and it was incumbent upon everyone to ensure its adherence in letter and spirit.
He said a `vast majority of the legal community, including former presidents, supported this stance, except a few individuals who authored the letter, based on political motivations, aiming to divide the lawyers.
Supporting the 26th Amendment, he said it represented the collective will of the Parliament and had effectively curtailed the judicial overreach and strengthened the very principle of the separation of powers for all times to come.
He said only the Parliament was competent to amend the Constitution and this power had been exercised lawfully, and we must respect this fact.
He further said the 26th Amendment had made the judiciary more independent than ever and enhanced the accessibility of justice to ordinary citizens/litigants.
He said the subject incorrectly claimed that the 26th Amendment had made the executive “Master of the Roaster and falsely referred the Constitutional Bench as the “executive-dominated” bench.
Rauf said the present composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) was by far the finest formation, comprising equal and balanced representation of the democratic, political (treasury and opposition) and legal minds. Today’s JCP ensures that each member is master of his or her own conscience.
He said they had full confidence in the current composition of the JCP, formation of Constitutional Benches, and functioning and any matters related to the 26th Amendment now fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Bench.
The SCBA president said that no one should compel the court to call a full court and any such convening under political duress will have no relevance and shall not be accepted by the legal fraternity adding that they strongly disapprove writing of such letters by a few individuals as their viewpoints had already been rejected by the legal community.
They should refrain from creating divisions within the legal community. Any future attempts to do so will be met with a firm response, he concluded