ISLAMABAD – Parliament and the judiciary are quietly but knowingly heading towards a confrontation as both have not accepted each other’s mandate on the appointment of judges and making the proceedings of an in-camera meeting of the parliamentary committee public is clearly a self-justificatory leak to establish the authority of the elected representatives of the people.
According to the 19th Amendment, the meetings of the parliamentary committee “shall be held in camera and the record of its proceedings shall be maintained”. The disclosure of the reasons recorded by the committee while rejecting the nomination of six high court judges is understandably by design.
Background discussions with legal experts, who did not want to be named, suggest that tolerance level at both ends is low. They opine that the parliamentary committee has not been able to accept the judicial commission and vice versa while the court is also not showing restraint. Though they do not see that the judiciary will divide on this issue, they fear that the lack of spirit to accommodate and accept each other may lead to a confrontation between parliament and the judiciary. They also view the decision of the parliamentary committee a result of the situation in Punjab and say that its decision could have been unanimous rather than being split on rejection of judges’ extension.
It was on Monday when Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the petitioners, had asked the court that he be provided with the reasons recorded by the parliamentary committee while rejecting the judges’ extension. Though the court, headed by Justice Mehmood Akhter Shahid Siddiqui, asked the deputy attorney general to provide the details he clearly said it was not possible as they could not be made public. But surprisingly the details were leaked.
Justice Mamoon Rashid Sheikh was not considered for being a slow worker, indecisive, hesitant, shy to take quick decision and also opinionated. Justice Mohammad Farrukh Irfan Khan was considered as a “novice” in legal issues and that he too was slow.
About Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, it was said he was harsher, not inaccessible and indulged in loose talk, besides being rigid and prejudiced. Justice Mohammad Yawar Ali was rejected because for also being a slow worker and denying due relief.
The conduct, attitude and behaviour of Justice Mohammad Tasnim was noted as not of “quality” and Justice Salman Hamid conduct was also described as unbecoming of a judge.
