Jago Times "English Edition" Best Online Newspaper
Related Articles
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday rejected a petition challenging the Parliamentary Committee’s (PC) decision of summoning two designated judges for the IHC — Babar Sattar and Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri — for interviews on Dec 21.
Formed under Article 175-A of the Constitution, the PC has been tasked to endorse the nominations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) — another constitutional body constituted under the same provision that approves individuals to be appointed as judges of superior courts.
Authored by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, the judgement said that the PC should be respected as there was no reason why the judiciary should not repose confidence and trust in its proceedings.
The petition was moved by Advocate Iftikhar Ahmed Bashir.
In its last meeting on Tuesday, the eight-member and bipartisan Parlia-mentary Committee had decided to summon the two nominees to be appointed as judges for interviews on Dec 21.
IHC reposes trust in PC vis-a-vis its constitutional obligation
The chief justice, while rejecting the petition, observed that it would be unjustified to assume that by inviting the two nominated candidates to interviews the PC had exceeded its jurisdiction or violated the principles and law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 2011 Munir Hussain Bhatti case.
He observed that the high court was satisfied that the apprehensions of the petitioner appeared to be misplaced and premature at this stage. The court is also not inclined to examine the vires of the PC on judges’ appointment in the Superior Courts Rules, 2010. because the PC is yet to conclude its proceedings.
The high court is confident that the PC would fulfil its constitutional obligation of ensuring the appointment of professionally competent, upright and independent-minded persons as judges of the IHC, the chief justice observed.
The petitioner had challenged the vires of rules 3 and 5 of the 2010 Rules and had argued that the scope of powers of the PC was confined to considering the antecedents, which were to be examined on the basis of material obtained by itself or from the executive.
The petitioner contended that a nominee for appointment as a judge of the high court could not be invited or summoned by the PC for an interview in view of the 2011 Munir Hussain Bhatti judgement.
The chief justice observed that there was no cavil to the proposition that the appointment of a person as a judge of the high court was an onerous constitutional duty and of paramount public importance.
In order to ensure quality appointments, Article 175-A of the Constitution had prescribed an elaborate procedure in relation to screening of candidates, the judgement said, adding that the JCP and PC were two pivotal forums for ensuring the selection of the very best as judges of superior courts.
The judges are impartial arbiters of disputes and they guard constitutionally guaranteed rights and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and rule of law, the judgement observed, adding that a person appointed as a judge ought to be as well-qualified as possible.
It was of utmost importance to appoint qualified, professional and independent-minded persons as judges because of the significant impact of the judicial branch of the state on the lives of the citizens and the security, prosperity and wellbeing of a nation, the chief justice observed.
It was the duty of judges and courts to protect liberties of the people and shield them from unlawful and unwarranted intrusion from the state and its agents and without independent, competent and upright judges there could neither be justice nor freedom, the chief justice observed.