The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment on petitions challenging the 18th and 21st amendments.
The petitions, heard by a 17-member full bench of Supreme Court (SC) headed by Chief Justice Nasir ul Mulk, reserved the verdict after arguments from both sides were completed.
Several petitions challenging the 18th amendment which was passed during the last tenure of the PPP government were filed in the apex court. The 18th amendment introduced a new procedure for the appointment of superior court judges.
Petitions were also filed against the 21st amendment under which military courts were set up to try hardened militants.
Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt argued that Parliament had the authority to introduce constitutional amendments and courts could not interfere in this process. He called on the apex court to dismiss petitions against the 18th and 21st amendments arguing that they were not admissible for hearing.
Butt further argued that the judiciary has been empowered in the constitution and the SC was entitled to interpret the constitution but the court cannot nullify any constitutional amendment with a stroke of pen. He supported formation of military courts.
Justice Saqib Nisar remarked that, “during the Musharraf regime, major political parties were broken up and groups were formed. Heads of three largest parties remained in exile. The sitting prime minister had to live in exile in Saudi Arabia and London. The 63-A was introduced to do away with the course. This article may be changed in the future as democracy strengthens”.
He further observed that, “people elect their representatives and the elected representatives of people have been given role in appointing the judges”.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa pointed out that “there remained no continuity in democracy in the country. Dictators divided political parties to stay in power. Condition of graduation was fixed for members of parliament during the Musharraf regime. Had there been a BA condition at the time of creation of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam would have been disqualified too as he had done bar-at-law”.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that “cases are coming to us repeatedly and we are doing judicial reviews even though judicial review is the mandate of the executive”. He asked whether the court was entitled to carry out judicial reviews
Justice Qazi Faiz Essa commented that, “the entire nation wants end to terrorism as soon as possible. But the procedure adopted by the federal government will delay awarding of punishment to the terrorists. He proposed that federal government should decide which cases against the militants should be sent to military courts.
Attorney General Suleman Butt, while completing his arguments, said that military courts were a necessity in the prevailing situation and the courts were formed through enactment of legislation and the federal government had to decide to refer the cases of militants to military courts.
Earlier this month, the apex court was told that the 21st amendment, which established military courts to try hardened terrorists, had seriously undermined, disturbed and distorted the five broad structures and the scheme of the Constitution.
