ISLAMABAD – Hearing a joint petition against the Parliamentary Committee’s (PC) rejection of one year extension in the service of four additional judges of the Lahore High Court (LHC), the Supreme Court on Thursday expressed dismay and warned the committee of ex-parte proceedings, when it came to know that no representative of the committee had turned up to pursue the matter.
The four-member bench of Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez was hearing a joint petition filed by Munir Hussain Bhatti and Kamran Murtaza challenging the rejection of extension by the PC. The court directed Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq to represent the federal government in the petition on the next hearing and also place on record the “reasons” over which the PC rejected the proposal.
During the hearing, the court expressed severe dismay when nobody was there to represent the PC and the federal government. Appearing on notice, the attorney general told the court that since he himself was part of the Judicial Commission, he could not represent the federal government in the matter. “It’s a matter of great concern that nobody on behalf of the federal government and the PC appeared before the court,” Justice Khilji Arif Hussain observed.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that if nobody appeared in court, the bench would initiate ex-parte proceedings. “It is akin to making a mockery of the process,” he said. Later, Attorney General assured that he would appear on behalf of federal government in the matter. He submitted that he had contacted the Judicial Commission secretary and was informed that the commission has received the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee pertaining to the rejection of recommendations of four judges of the Lahore High Court.
Nasir Ali Shah, a solicitor of the Law ministry told the court that the Law secretary had not received the court’s notice. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said it was astonishing that the whole world came to know about the notice through the media, but the Law secretary remained ignorant. Makhdoom Ali Khan, lawyer for the petitioner requested the court to direct the attorney general to place on record the reasons for rejecting the extension in service.
He said the case should be decided under Article 175A of the constitution, which authorises the Judicial Commission (JC) to appoint judges to the superior courts. The court adjourned proceedings until Monday.
Judges’ term – SC warns committee of ex-parte proceedings
