–Amendment passed by lower house increases number of judges from seven to ten, including CJ
–Govt rejects amendment seeking submission of tax returns and asset details of high court judges
ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly (NA) on Friday passed the Islamabad High Court (Amendment) Bill, 2019 aimed at increasing the number of judges in the court from seven to ten, including the chief justice.
The bill was moved by Parliamentary Secretary for Law and Justice Maleeka Ali Bukhari following which the House passed it after voice voting.
The government rejected the amendments proposed by the lawmakers in this bill and approved it as reported by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.
Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz (PML-N) MNA Shahid Khaqan Abbassi moved the amendment in the bill for submission of tax returns and assets details by the judges.
However, Bukhari opposed it and said that Article 193 of the Constitution would have to be changed for the purpose. She also opposed the amendments of other MNAs and finally the House passed the bill.
It may be mentioned that the bill was referred to the standing committee on December 21, 2018, following which it reported on this legislative proposal and recommended to increase the number of judges in Islamabad High Court (IHC) from seven to 10, including the CJ.
The opposition lawmakers, having representation in this committee, submitted dissenting notes on it but the National Assembly passed it as reported by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.
According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the bill, the existing sanctioned strength of Judges of Islamabad High Court (IHC) is six plus one chief justice. As intimated by the IHC, the present strength of judges compared to number of pending cases is not sufficient, besides the institution of fresh cases which is increasing every year.
“It is, therefore, necessary to increase the strength of the judges of the IHC from seven to 10 judges, including the chief justice to overcome the difficulties of litigant public for early disposal of long pending cases,” it recommended.
[…] Source link […]
Comments are closed.