ISLAMABAD – After the Supreme Court (SC)’s dismissal of the government’s review petition against the apex court’s order overruling the Parliamentary Committee’s decision to reject the Judicial Commission’s recommendations on judges’ appointments, the Parliamentary Committee may bring the final verdict of the apex court to parliament for debate. During the hearing of the review plea, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that the eight-member parliamentary committee did not have the status of parliament. On the contrary, he said, it was answerable to parliament.
The Parliamentary Committee, in its last meeting held on April 7, had delayed presenting the SC’s verdict in parliament.
Parliamentary Committee Chairman Senator Nayyer Hussain Bokhari had told reporters that the committee would take a decision on presenting the SC verdict in parliament after the apex court’s order on review petition. A member of the PC, who wished to remain unnamed, said members of the committee belonging to the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) had advocated in the committee’s last two meetings the idea of presenting the SC verdict in parliament, with the viewpoint that it was against the supremacy of parliament, while the PML-Nawaz members had opposed the move.
Prominent lawyer Akram Sheikh told Pakistan Today that the SC verdict could not be brought to parliament for debate. “If the PC opts to present the verdict of the apex court against its decision in parliament, it will be tantamount to contempt of court and will give rise to a new confrontation between the government and the judiciary,” he added. Most senior lawyers such as Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Tariq Mehmood and Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry said the SC’s decision in the review petition was in line with constitutional provisions, provided under Article 175(A) in the 18th Amendment and other provisions of the constitution.
They said the recommendations of the Judicial Commission had been and should be seen in the perspective of independence of the judiciary relating to appointments of judges. “The judgement has laid down once again the foundation of the rule of law, the separation of power provided under the constitution with regards to different institutions,” they said.
