A three-member Supreme Court bench on Monday accepted a petition challenging appointment of retired judges as chief judge or judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit Baltistan and issued notices to the attorney general and other respondents. The bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez had taken up a petition filed by Advocate Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry on behalf of Dr Ghulam Abbas, a social activist who is also chairman of the Gilgit Baltistan National Movement and recipient of the Jinnah Award and Quaid-i-Azam Award.
Chaudhry submitted before the court that retired judges over 70 years of age had been appointed in the SACof GB, adding that of these, some had taken oath under the November 3, 2007 Proclamation of Emergency Order (PCO), which has been declared by the apex court as unconstitutional. He requested the court to set aside the appointment of such judges. He said there should be an amendment to the relevant laws requiring the chief judge and judges of the GB SAC to serve as judges up to the age of 65 years like judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the AJK Supreme Court. He pleaded the court to declare the appointment of retired judges as chief judge or judge of the GB SAC as illegal and against the constitution. He requested the court to declare unconstitutional Article 60(5, 6) and 60(8) of the GB (Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009) because it violated fundamental rights of the citizens of GB and all norms of justice and principles that had been laid down by the SC.
He sought a suitable amendment to the Empowerment and Self-Governance Order to bring it at par with the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan and the Interim Constitutional Act of AJK 1974. “This will help ensure independence of the judiciary and fundamental rights in Gilgit Baltistan’, he submitted. He said a retired and controversial judge who had taken oath under the Nov 3, 2007 PCO had been appointed as chief judge of the GB court after his retirement which was contrary to the Supreme Court’s July 31 judgment declaring the PCO judges illegal. The decision was not only unjustified but also amounted to discriminatory treatment with the people of GB, Ikram Chaudhry contended. “The GB SAC is not like a service tribunal or election tribunal rather a full-fledged court like the SC of Pakistan and, therefore, it should be treated like an independent court,” he said. In 1999, the SC had held that the people of GB (then Northern Areas) were citizens of Pakistan and, therefore, entitled to same fundamental rights as available to the citizens of Pakistan.
It had also ordered the federal government to establish an appellate forum to hear appeals against decisions of the apex court of GB. In 2005, the government had established a court of appeal which was renamed in 2007 as the SACGilgit. It is still functioning under the Northern Areas Governance Order 1994. The petitioner has contended that terms, conditions and privileges of SC judges in Pakistan regarding the retirement age were available to AJK judges, but the same were denied to GB judges. “They are appointed on contract as per the 2009 order which militates against Articles 175 and 203 of the Constitution and even is in conflict with the chief court/high court position under the law.”
The petitioner asked when the retirement age of the chief justice and judges of AJK SC as well as the chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is 65 years why the judges in GB were being appointed for a period of three years. The federal government through the law ministry, chairmen of GB Prime Minister’s Secretariat and GB Legislative Council, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and GB Division and GB Legislative Assembly speaker are respondents in the petition.
