Judicial body delays decision on engaging judiciary in polls


The National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC), headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on Saturday delayed a decision to include the district-level judiciary in the election process on the request of the chief election commissioner (CEC).
In an informal talk with reporters after a meeting at the Supreme Court’s (SC) Lahore Registry, SC Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain said the committee had discussed the request made by the CEC. However, committee members raised some points and it was decided to approach the Election Commission for clarification, he said, adding that the decision would be made on the CEC’s request in the next meeting of NJPMC. The participants of the meeting included the CJP, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Sindh High Court Chief Justice Mushir Alam, Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Peshawar High Court Justice Miftahuddin Khan, and the SC registrar.
Earlier while addressing the meeting, the CJP said the NJPMC’s special meeting was called to consider the CEC’s request for allowing relaxation in the judicial policy to include the district-level judiciary in the election process. He pointed out that judicial officers had been barred from any other work except their duties in the judicial policy to improve dispensation of justice, and many ex-cadre officers were also called back. He further said that it was decided not to send judicial officers for election duties after rigging complaints.
The CJP also pointed out that during a meeting the CEC had said that all political parties were desirous of free and fair elections, and that it had been decided to request the judiciary’s involvement in the process.
The CJP said that it was a national issue, and elections held under the constitution would strengthen the state institutions. He thanked the political parties for reposing trust in the judiciary. Later in the day the CJP visited Sheikhupura where he addressed the District Bar Association. Addressing the lawyers, Justice Chaudhry said that no one had dared to resist the successive martial laws imposed in the country. The CJP said the man who honours law had the right to lead the country, adding that the rule of law was a guarantee to the security and survival of the country. Referring to former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf, he said the military dictator tried to devastate law and order situation in the country, but the lawyers’ community decided on November 3, 2007, to liberate the country from the clutches of dictators who had nothing to do with civil rights. The CJP said that the first constitution of Pakistan was formed by the parliament. He said that rulers in the past had imposed emergency in order to suppress the lawyers’ movement, but young lawyers had proved with their unconditional and sincere sacrifices that they would not compromise national interests. “And with the passage of time they proved that they were sincere to their cause and commitment,” he added.


  1. Another decision pended / kept in the pocket for the opportune moment as the situation develops. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

  2. Quote- "The CJP said the man who honours law had the right to lead the country"

    So much contradiction—– in existing assemblies all convicted and criminals are allowed to rule. The man with 10 years in jail is leading the country.

  3. Judges are not expected to speak unnecessarily in court. It is not the bounden duty of a judge to make comments on every topic even if alien to his comprehension. The more detached a judicial comment is from contemporary ideas and ideals, the more extensive the consequent publicity. Some judges have achieved a considerable degree of expertise in making such statements and in displaying immunity from contemporary knowledge and concerns. Judges are expected not to cultivate bias and prejudices in cases they hear. These are base characteristics of human nature. High judicial status immunises men and women from childlike displays of petulance and prejudice. An independent judiciary does not have judges with bias, petulance and prejudices.

Comments are closed.