PHC dismisses judge’s petition against non-confirmation

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition of former Islamabad High Court additional judge Azim Afridi against his non-confirmation as the IHC judge by the Judicial Commission due to non-maintainability.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Ijaz Anwar passed a short order. It said the writ petition was not maintainable in the high court and the petitioner could file it before the Supreme Court.

The high court decided the case maintainability after four and a half years. The first hearing of the case was held in March, this year four years after it was submitted in the high court.

The petitioner, a senior district and sessions judge, requested the court to declare the meeting of the Judicial Commission held on October 22, 2012, illegal, malicious and of no legal effect.

The respondents in the petition are the president of Pakistan through the Law Ministry; federal government through the Law Ministry, and the Judicial Commission secretary.

On maintainability, the petitioner’s lawyer, Muhammad Muazzam Butt, submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Chief Justice, Mian Saqib Nisar, the high court has the jurisdiction to hear the writ petition against the Judicial Commission.

He further submitted that the petitioner did not file the petition against the Islamabad High Court or Supreme Court judges, but against the Judicial Commission, that cover the whole Pakistan and thus the high court has jurisdiction to hear the petition.

However, the law officer representing the federation questioned the maintainability of the petition and said the PHC had no jurisdiction to hear the petition.

The petitioner is serving as district and sessions judge in KP when he was elevated as the Islamabad High Court (IHC) additional judge to the seat reserved for Federally Administered Tribal Areas in 2011.

He claimed he had discharged his duty as additional judge and performed his functions honestly and with dedication.

The petitioner said the IHC chief justice had begun giving him administrative duties soon after his elevation to the bench. He claimed that he had annulled some illegal appointments made to the high court and district judiciary, annoying ‘influential figures’ and some Judicial Commission members, including its chairman at that time.