Justice Azmat asks: Why should parliament have a role in judges appointment?

ISLAMABAD: Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed of the Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the role of political parties in the appointment of judges, observing that this practice will give rise to judicial wings in political parties.
He said if parliament has no role in the appointment of a Tehsildar, then why was it appointing judges of superior courts. Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that though the parliamentary committee has no role in the appointment of a Tehsildar or a secretary but if it is brought before the court that political influence had been used in the appointment, then the court could strike it down.
He further noted that that it had come to their knowledge that the parties in the parliamentary committee for the appointment of judges had a quota of judges. “Instead of militant wings, now the parties have judicial wings,” he added.A 17-member full Supreme Court bench heard the petitions challenging the procedure for the appointment of superior courts judges under the 18th Amendment.
During the hearing, Hamid Khan, representing various bar councils, continued his arguments. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan questioned the counsel that instead of borrowing things from the UK, US or a neighbouring country, can’t we evolve a mechanism in the light of our own circumstances and conditions and appoint honest and independent judges?
He inquired from Hamid Khan whether the parliamentary committee had obstructed merit. “We should develop an indigenous system and whoever is good should be provided an opportunity to serve the judiciary,” Justice Ejaz Afzal observed.
Hamid Khan submitted that in the United Kingdom, parliament has been kept away from the sphere of judges’ appointment just to avoid publicising this organ. Stressing to look into the historical perspective, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, another member of the bench, observed the Pakistan Bar Council had passed two resolutions and similarly the Supreme Court Bar Association also passed one resolution while Justice (retd) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui also emphasised the role of the parliamentary committee.
“There has been sustained demand for the parliamentary committee,” Justice Khosa added.He further observed that everything was under control as the parliamentary committee on judges appointment only confirms the names forwarded to it by the judicial commission. He said if the committee rejects any nomination then it has to give justifiable reasons.
“Why there was so much distrust for politicians, as they have created the country and gave the nation a Constitution,” Justice Khosa asked Hamid Khan.It is pertinent to mention that in February, the Supreme Court had decided to take up the pending 18th Amendment case along with the current petitions, challenging the 21st Amendment case.
Four years earlier, the full court headed by former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on October 21, 2010 issued an order suggesting new guidelines in the procedure for appointment of judges of the superior courts under Article 175-A of the Constitution.
Later, the Parliament passed a law under the 19th Amendment and accepted all the proposals made by the Supreme Court and incorporated them into the Constitution.On Tuesday, Hamid Khan argued that the parliamentarians wanted to strengthen the committee and weaken the judicial commission. He said five years experience is before us.
Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk observed that there have been so many appointments through the present system in the last five years, and the judges have passed many judgments. “With the passage of time, things will be resolved because if we would evolve new system then again there will be some problems,” the chief justice observed.
Hamid Khan further submitted that in the last five years many judicial appointments have become controversial. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, another member of the bench, said friction between the institutions is not bad but healthy as things improve, but if they (institutions) are hand in glove with each other then it’s a matter of concern.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan questioned the counsel as to how the parliamentary committee obstruct or impinge the independence of judiciary. “Why did you think that the parliamentary committee should be excluded from the process of judges’ appointment,” Justice Ejaz Afzal asked Hamid Khan.
Justice Saqib said independence of judiciary and separation of powers are the cardinal features of the Constitution.Meanwhile, the full court adjourned the hearing till today (Wednesday) while Hamid Khan will continue his arguments.