Full Court Reference recommends Khalil Ramday for one more year – Azad Adliya Zindabad
Related articles: LUBP Archive on Justice Khalil Ramday
In a latest news relayed by Dawn News and Geo News at 9.30 pm PST, a full court reference was held under the stewardship of CJP, Iftikhar Chaudhry that has “recommended through unanimous resolution” extension in the ad-hoc tenure of Justice Khalil ur Rehman Ramday and Justice Rehmat Hussain Jaffri for one more year. Since when has the Supreme Court become a consultative body coming up with recommendations and unanimous resolution. Expect fireworks in days to come.
I would also like to point out a news that appeared in Lahore based Nawai Waqt on 12th February which is given below:
Connect the dots….does it make sense? Only 3 days ago the CJ said “Abhee kuch nahee keh saktay” but only three days later, they say everything!
Will the government be held on ransom again? Only time will tell.
It is a big joke for the people of Pakistan in the name of independent judiciary. Judiciary has never a history of independent opinion, it always a hostage of Chief Justice in chair except in the case of Sajjad Ali Shah. CJ can hold the power if the real power shows its support or keep quite behind him. It is the history of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
This is now getting ridiculous.
its a judicial dictatorship.judiciary become like a political party.They are working on an agenda to keep ppp govt under-crisis and undr-pressure all the time so it fails. ITS NOT A JUDICIARY ,ITS JUSTICE PARTY .
PMLN judge khalil rehman ramday will get another year as adhoc judge ,what a joke,sc asking democratic govt to remove officers on contract and itself recommending 2 Judges on contract.Khalil ramday son mustafa ramday getting alot of cases from punjab govt, Rmday associates family law firm of khalil ramday is favourite firm of Punjab govt , Khalil ramday’s nephew Raza farooq was advocate general of punjab govt till his death last year, khalil ramday brother choudry farooq was attorney general in Nawaz sharif’s last govt and opened cases against Benazir bhutto in Switzerland.Asadul rehman another brother of khalil ramday is the EX-MNA of pmln ,he contested on pmln ticket from Lahore in last election but lost the seat.Mustafa ramday himself admitted in media that he got Rs2.5 million from punjab govt for fighting cases for them in courts.What can you expect from this pmln family?
Ramday to get rare second extension
http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/15/ramday-to-get-rare-second-extension.html
So now the Judges themselves will give each other extensions? Who is the judiciary accountable to or are they going to be like dictators and do what they please?
This is judicial anarchy or maybe one can call judicial dictatorship. This judicial activism lobby is working just like gangsters – last week they pushed Asma Jahangir in defensive position with the statement from the office bearers of SCBA that Asma’s criticism on judges is her personal view. And now they moved this resolution like declaration form the state.
Now all the attention is on raymond davis issue and you’lll see that cj will keep the nation and government on ransom again.
Ramday to be extended in the garb of Rehmat Hussain Jaffry. How sick! Also see who is acting as the spokespersons for the judges – The News and Jang!!! Shameful. How can a retired person be brought back? Doesnt make sense at all. The press release talks about recommendation while the headline has already given the order that Ramday and Jaffery to rejoin the SC!. Classic.
Ramday, Jaffery to rejoin SC as ad hoc judges
http://old.thenews.com.pk/15-02-2011/ethenews/t-4009.htm
The News, February 15, 2011
ISLAMABAD: A full court meeting of the Supreme Court on Monday was informed that pendency of cases at the Supreme Court and its four branch registries had increased in the last one year. It was noticed that pendency of the cases at the principal seat, Islamabad, and branch registries at Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta had observed an increase due to many reasons.
It was felt that in the last one year, many important constitutional and other cases consumed much of the court’s time. In one instance, the 18th Amendment case was heard for about more than five months. Similarly, the NRO review case, the Bank of Punjab case and cases like Haj scandal and Reko Diq were heard by larger benches. In addition to that, the regular hearing of suo motu cases by various Benches also factored in the cases by various Benches also factored in the delay of disposal of other cases.
However, it was also observed with great satisfaction that the pendency of cases also appeared because of fresh institution of higher number of cases. It was noticed that due to increased credibility of apex court as well as the high courts and even the district courts, more and more people are approaching the courts for seeking justice. Therefore, the increased pendency of cases is a positive indication of the fact that people have posed confidence in the judicial hierarchy of the country.
The full court devised a methodology to improve the disposal of cases. Many ideas were discussed in this regard. It was decided that the category of cases as formulated in the National Judicial Policy must be followed for fixing of cases.
It was agreed that the cases involving the recovery of government revenues, tax matters, rent matters, family matters, stay matters, women and juvenile cases and service matters should be accorded top priority. It was also agreed that specific benches be designated to hear specific category of cases. These benches may also issue next date of hearings to avoid the possibility of delay of re-fixing of cases in the event of an adjournment. It was also decided that two benches should start working at Lahore from the next month. Regular benches will also be sent to other branch registries on rotation basis.
It was noted that with the elevation of the two Judges today, the Supreme Court sanctioned strength is complete. However, in view of the pendency of cases and ever increasing institution of fresh cases, ad hoc Judges as enshrined in the Constitution may be appointed.
The Chief Justice proposed that in order to clear the backlog of the pendency, Justice Khalil-ur-Rehmman Ramday and Justice Rahmat Hussain Jaffery who retired a few months ago, may be requested to rejoin the bench as Ad-hoc Judges under Article 182 of the Constitution to work for a period of one and two years respectively. The full court meeting unanimously agreed the proposal.
Article 182 of the Constitution stipulates that if at any time it is not possible for want of quorum of judges of the Supreme Court to hold or to continue any sitting of the Court, or for any other reason it is necessary to increase temporarily the number of judges of Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan in consultation with the Judicial Commission as provided in clause (2) of Article 175-A with the approval of the President, request any person who has held the office of a judge of that Court to attend sittings as an ad hoc judge for such period as may be necessary.
Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Justice Rahmat Hussain Jaffery have been pleased to accept the proposal in wider institutional interest. It was hoped that with the implementation of these measures, overall pendency position should register marked improvement.
Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, former chief justice of Sindh High Court and Justice Amir Hani Muslim, judge of the High Court of Sindh on Monday took oath as judges of the Supreme Court.
The full court appreciated the role played by Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Amir Hani Muslim for the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice specifically mentioned the sacrifice made by Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmaney being a member of the bench of the Supreme Court which decided the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association in July 2009 wherein his lordship had to sacrifice his own position as judge of the apex court, yet, kept principle of rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution beyond his personal interest.
Similarly, the full court appreciated Justice Amir Hani Muslim for his steadfastness in the wake of November 3 action.
The Full Court meeting, chaired by CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, was attended by Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Tariq Parvez, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Justice Amir Hani Muslim, Justice Ghulam Rabbani Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday. Dr Faqir Hussain, Registrar Supreme Court of Pakistan and Sajid Mehmood Qazi, Additional Registrar, Supreme Court also attended the meeting.
Ramday to get rare second extension
http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=15_02_2011_005_010
Dawn, February 15, 2011
ISLAMABAD, Feb 14: Veteran Supreme Court judge Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday will get a rare second extension as ad hoc judge following a proposal adopted at a full court meeting here on Monday.
According to a legal source, the proposal also sought the appointment of Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi as an ad hoc judge, who had reached superannuation on Nov 22 last year.
Justice Ramday’s one-year extension expires on Feb 16. But it is not yet clear whether the extension will be for six months, a year or more than a year.
A late-night announcement by the Supreme Court said that Chief Justice Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who presided over the full court meeting, had proposed to request the two judges to rejoin the bench as ad hoc judges, which was unanimously agreed. Both the judges, it said, had accepted the proposal in “wider institutional interest”.
At the outset, the meeting welcomed newly-elevated judges — Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Amir Hani Muslim — who were sworn in as SC judges in the morning. With their elevation, the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength of 17 has been completed.
The source said that after the 19th Amendment the chief justice could seek the appointment of a judge of the same court as an ad hoc judge in consultation with the Judicial Commission (JC) constituted under the 18th Amendment. However, the condition of an approval by the eight-member Parliamentary Committee required under the 18th Amendment is not necessary in this case.
The Article 182 which was amended in the 19th Amendment says: “If at any time it is not possible for want of quorum of judges of the Supreme Court to hold or continue any sitting of the court or for any other reason it is necessary to increase temporarily the number of judges in the Supreme Court, the chief justice in consultation with the JC may in writing with the approval of the president, request any person who has held the office of a judge of that court and since whose ceasing to hold that office three years have not elapsed, to attend sitting of the Supreme Court as ad hoc judge for such period as may be necessary and while so attending the ad hoc judge shall have the same power of jurisdiction as a judge of the Supreme Court.” Reacting to the news, Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jehangir said: “I am quite surprised that Justice Ramday is being given another extension.” It was not even appropriate for a judge to attend a meeting where a proposal for ex tension of his service as ad hoc judge was being made, she told Dawn.
“I had an invitation with me to attend a full court reference in his (Justice Ramday) honour followed by a farewell dinner,” she said, adding that the SCBA had even arranged a lunch in his honour which seemed not necessary now after the announcement.
“We need to firm up a system for getting confirmation of judges in the superior judiciary because ad hoc judges are appointed only in exceptional cases, but here I don’t find any exceptional situation for Justice Ramday’s continuation as ad hoc judge,” Ms Jehangir said.
It would have been more proper if the appointment was made on the suggestions of bar associations than by the Supreme Court itself, she said, adding that such appointments had created controversy in the past.
“It is very surprising if the full court has passed the resolution to grant one more extension to Justice Ramday because the full court reference in his honour is scheduled for Feb 17.
“An invitation for the dinner hosted by the Supreme Court in honour of the judge has already been issued and a lunch to be hosted by Asma Jehangir on Friday has also been finalised,” senior Advocate Tariq Mehmood told Dawn.
Last year when Justice Ramday was recalled by the chief justice to serve on the bench for one more year, he wrote to the latter that he would not draw any salary and it should be deposited directly in the account of AlMizan Foundation — the organisation set up for the benefit and welfare of serving and retired employees of the Supreme Court.
DISPOSAL OF CASES: The full court also devised a methodology to speed up disposal of cases. Many ideas were discussed and the meeting decided that the category of cases as formulated in the National Judicial Policy would be followed for fixing cases.
The cases relating to recovery of government revenue and tax, rent, family, stay, women, juvenile and service matters will be given top priority. Benches will be designated to hear specific categories of cases. Two benches will start working in Lahore next month. Regular benches will also be sent to branch registries on a rotation basis.
The full court noted that due to increased credibility of the judiciary more people were approaching courts for justice.
http://express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101170249&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20110215
Asma Jahangir on the resolution of extension for Justice Ramday
Is this guy for real. And today he is making hue and cry ordering the govt to immediately sack the adhoc appointees. Good lord. Is there no body to show him the mirror in the court and tell him that you have gone completely bonkers.
Now it is proven that jang and judges are doing “you scratch my back i scratch yours”.
REAL FACE OF A JUDGE
Tactless remarks Dawn Editorial Thursday, 18 Mar, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/14-tactless-remarks-830-zj-10
BARELY days after the Punjab chief minister was caught playing to the Taliban gallery, another high official from the province is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. This time, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif has sparked outrage for reportedly saying that Hindus were responsible for financing acts of terrorism in Pakistan. The remarks came while the judge was hearing two identical petitions against the possible extradition of Afghan Taliban suspects. It may well have been a slip of the tongue by Mr Sharif, who might have mistakenly said ‘Hindu’ instead of ‘India’ — nevertheless it was a tasteless remark to say the least. Although such remarks warrant criticism what makes them worse is the position of the person who makes them. These sort of comments are the last thing one expects to hear from a judge, that too the chief justice of a provincial high court. What sort of message are we sending to our minorities, as well as to the world, when the holder of such a respected public office makes comments that come across as thoughtless? The Hindu members of the National Assembly walked out of the house on Tuesday to protest the remarks. The members said the comments had hurt the feelings of Pakistani Hindus — and there is no doubt that they had.
ANOTHER REAL FACE OF A JUDGE
ISLAMABAD: Respected Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, just appointed as ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court, has decided not to draw his salary and has donated the same to Al-Mizan Foundation, a welfare organization for the serving and retired employees of the judiciary including subordinate courts. Justice Ramday, who was reluctant to re-join the apex court as an ad hoc judge and had already planned for his retirement, has formally written to the chief justice that he would serve as an honorary ad hoc judge without salary. REFERENCE: Ramday donates salary to workers Friday, February 19, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27350
LAHORE: The Punjab government has approved 58 requests by politicians, judicial officers and senior civil and police officers, who are residents of GOR-I and II, for renovations, alterations and repairs – work that is likely to cost Rs 43.55 million, according to sources. In January, the government received 121 such requests: 79 from GOR-1 residents who asked for Rs 68.09 million and 42 from GOR II residents who asked for Rs.29.7 million, said the sources. The sources said 44 of the requests sent in from GOR I had been approved, and work on them was likely to cost Rs 33.46 million, while 14 requests from GOR II had been approved, and work on them was likely to cost Rs10.10 million.
GOR I: Among others, Javed Mehmood, former chief secretary of Punjab and a resident of 9-Aikman Road, would been given Rs 1.05 million for the construction of servant quarters and a boundary wall; Jalal Skindar Sultan, the S&GAD service secretary and a resident of 14-Aikman Road, would be given Rs 1,633,600 for renovations; Najeebullah Malik, former Punjab chief secretary, would be given around Rs 5 million; Finance Minister Tanveer Ashraf Kiara would be given Rs 231,800; Anwar Ahmed Khan would be given Rs 79,600; the Chief Minister’s Secretariat secretary would be given Rs 10.61 million for 5 and 7 Club Road; Khawaja Shumail would be given Rs 1.54 million for renovations at 22-Club Road; Hassan Nawaz Tarar would be given Rs 212,500; Khawaja Naeem would be given Rs 1.33 million; Suhail Masood would be given Rs 145,800, Justice (r) Khalilur Rehman Ramday would be given Rs 115,700; Jehanzab Khan would be given Rs 732,200; Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary would be given Rs 853,100 for the construction of a bedroom and a fiber shed at 14-B Golf Road; Mazhar Ali Khan would be given Rs 808,800 for bamboo fences, steel doors, tuff paves, a fiber shed and a guest bedroom; Aftab Ahmed Cheema would be given Rs 722,880; Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, a former president, would be given Rs 431,330 to install barbed wire at 1-Shanan Road; Raja Ashfaq Sarwar, an adviser to the chief minister, would be given Rs 2.7 million for new tile floors, wardrobes and kitchen cabinets at 1-A Upper Mall; the Punjab Assembly speaker house would be given Rs 1.4 million for a boundary wall and tile flooring; Tanveer ul Islam, a provincial minister, would be given Rs 77,300 for a fiber glass car shed at 4-Upper Mall; Saifullah Chatta would be given Rs 726,400; IG House would be given Rs 809,000. Rs 43.55 million approved for home improvement at GORs By Anwer Hussain Sumra http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201027\story_7-2-2010_pg13_4
Justice (r) Khalilur Rehman Ramday would be given Rs 115,700; Jehanzab Khan would be given Rs 732,200; Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary would be given Rs 853,100 for the construction of a bedroom and a fiber shed at 14-B Golf Road; Mazhar Ali Khan would be given Rs 808,800 for bamboo fences, steel doors, tuff paves, a fiber shed and a guest bedroom; Aftab Ahmed Cheema would be given Rs 722,880; Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, a former president, would be given Rs 431,330 to install barbed wire at 1-Shanan Road; Raja Ashfaq Sarwar, an adviser to the chief minister, would be given Rs 2.7 million for new tile floors, wardrobes and kitchen cabinets at 1-A Upper Mall;
Kurd unhappy over SC verdict on NRO By Iftikhar A. Khan Wednesday, 23 Dec, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-kurd-unhappy-over-sc-verdict-on-nro–bi-09 Judges deciding cases on media lines: Kurd Daily Times Monitor Wednesday, December 23, 2009 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\23\story_23-12-2009_pg7_12
LAHORE: Judges of the higher judiciary are making up their minds about cases after reading newspaper headlines and watching TV shows, former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ali Ahmed Kurd said on Tuesday. Describing the present situation as “justice hurry and justice worry”, Kurd deplored the fact that the judges were visiting and addressing the bars and said they would have to “prove themselves worthy of their positions”. According to Kurd, judges in the United States neither read newspapers nor watched TV programmes, but focused only on their work. – ISLAMABAD: Ali Ahmed Kurd, the firebrand leader of the lawyers’ movement and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has been keeping quiet for quite some time, surprised a lot of people on Tuesday with his blunt criticism of the way the Supreme Court was behaving. Judges should “behave like judges”, he said. Speaking during a talk show on “Challenges facing the judiciary”, he said that people had reservations about the verdict handed down by the Supreme Court on petitions challenging the National Reconciliation Ordinance.
According to him, the judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels. Mr Kurd said that an independent judiciary had been restored after a great struggle, adding that the country would become stronger if the judiciary acted in the manner expected by the nation during the struggle. “If it does not happen, it will cause a blow to national security.” He said he had been invited by various bar councils after the restoration of the judiciary, but he preferred to keep quiet. He said he did not attend functions where the chief justice had been invited and quit his practice as a lawyer in the Supreme Court. It was astonishing to see judges visiting bar councils, he added. Mr Kurd described the National Judicial Policy as detrimental to the judicial system. He pointed out that a deadline of Dec 31 had been set for courts to decide cases. He said the maxim of ‘justice hurried is justice buried’ would turn out to be true in many cases because these, including cases of murder and dacoity, and the rights of defence and the practice of producing evidence of many people would be compromised due to paucity of time. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairperson Asma Jehangir also criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NRO and said it appeared to be a decision pronounced by a ‘jirga’. She was of the opinion that the NRO could have been declared null and void by merely declaring it as repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution, but a Pandora’s box had been opened by the court. Syed Iqbal Haider and Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood also spoke on the occasion.
میڈیا اور ججز:’رد عمل ذرا زیادہ تھا‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعـء 15 اکتوبر 2010 , 15:46 GMT 20:46 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2010/10/101015_judges_asma.shtml
ISLAMABAD: Terming the headline —’CJs express concern over judges security; threats from admin’ — of a news report, regarding the security related meeting, that appeared in The News on Sunday as misleading, the Supreme Court office, in its press release issued here, has clarified the same as under: “It is clarified that the above-mentioned caption is misleading in so far as it gives the impression that the judges of the Superior Courts have direct clear threats from administrative officials, which is not the true reflection of the issue discussed in the above mentioned meeting nor the press release issued in this regard refers to any such threats. In fact, the meeting discussed the security related situation in view of the purported information ‘emanating from administrative authorities’ in relation to the alleged plot to target the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court as mentioned in the report of the Special Branch of the Government of Punjab. “Unfortunately, your above-mentioned captions portray the totally different message as if the Hon’ble judges of Superior Courts are being threatened by the administrative officials, which is not the case. It is expected that an appropriate clarification may please be published prominently, preferably at the same spot on the front pages of the two newspapers in order to set the record straight.” REFERENCE: SC clarification Monday, September 20, 2010 Shawwal 10, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/20-09-2010/Top-Story/712.htm
Watch in the video below, Abbas Ather reveals without naming that it was a newspaper (Jang Group’s (Geo TV’s) newspaper The News) which had first spread a false rumour about the denotification of the Supreme Court judges on 19 January 2010. Try to search that news item via Google. And lo and behold. There is actually a news story in The News on that date. But there is a small problem here. The story has been removed from The News website; most probably very recently. No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification – 19 Jan 2010 … ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief … http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=26750 [even the cache which is usually available is not available]
Abbas Ather’s conversation with Asma Jahangir in today’s Column Kaar (16 October 2010)- Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNmgi5dL7EY
No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification The News Tuesday January 19, 2010 (1035 PST)
ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said an important minister. He was responding to a question of this correspondent about reports that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led coalition government was planning to technically knock out the judiciary in a ‘democratic way’.
But according to sources, the tug of war between the Pakistan People’s Party and the judicial echelon is not yet over. The PPP-led coalition government is planning to deal with the judiciary in a ‘democratic way’. The defiance strategy focuses on the use of constitutional means to make the judiciary toothless and powerless, said a highly reliable source.
However, the important minister who was initially reluctant to respond saying he was not the relevant person to talk on this issue, agreed to express his opinion after told that no other official was available. He said such reports were totally false and whatever steps the government would take would be in accordance with the law and Constitution. He said a propaganda campaign was being launched against the government to mislead the people. He said there may be such a proposal from any quarters, but the government had never committed violation of the Constitution. The government has not done anything which may offend the judiciary, he said, adding every proposal is thoroughly examined by the Presidency and the Prime Minister House and there is no chance that such a proposal can find any favourable response there.
But according to sources, President Asif Ali Zardari has made the PPP to use democracy and constitutionalism as its weapons to fight back. Initially, resilient Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was also given a go-ahead signal on December 19, 2009 to make his allegiance to the president public after his meeting with Zardari. On the same day, the meeting of the PPP Central Executive Committee ended with a defiant mood. Heated speeches in the meeting considered SC decision “as part of a conspiracy”, informed sources said. The source also revealed that the appointment of Dr Babar Awan as law minister is part of the strategy to fight back judiciary with an executive push. Rescinding government notification and introducing a new ordinance protecting NAB beneficiaries are the options to be used by in coming days to put pressure on the Supreme Court.
Under the same procedural defiance strategy, another highly-placed source said the government intends to withdraw the notification of March 17, 2009 through which the deposed judges of the superior judiciary were restored to the November 2, 2007 position.
The source disclosed that by withdrawing the notification of March 17, 2009, the Presidency believes that the office of the chief justice will fall vacant, so neither any bench could be constituted nor could be any stay order issued until the appointment of a new chief justice.
On March 17, 2009, the Law Ministry had issued two separate notifications and Law Secretary Justice Agha Rafiq had read out the notifications in a press conference.
The first notification stated:
“Whereas the prime minister of Pakistan was pleased to announce on 16th day of March, 2009 that the deposed judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, including Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan, shall be restored to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007.
“Now therefore, the president of Pakistan is pleased to restore Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan to the position he was holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007. Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry will assume office of chief justice of Pakistan on 22nd March, 2009, after retirement of Mr Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan on 21st March, 2009.”
The second notification announced on same day stated:-
“The prime minister of Pakistan was pleased to announce on 16th day of March, 2009 that the deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, shall be restored to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007:
“Supreme Court of Pakistan: 1. Mr Justice Javed Iqbal; 2. Mr Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday; 3. Mr Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed; 4. Mr Justice Ch Ijaz Ahmad.
“Lahore High Court: 1. Mr Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif; 2. Mr Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry; 3. Mr Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman.
“High Court of Sindh: 1. Mr Justice Mushir Alam; 2. Mr Justice Maqbool Baqar. “Peshawar High Court: 1. Mr Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.
“Now, therefore, the President of Pakistan is pleased to restore the above mentioned deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007. These judges will assume their office with immediate effect.”
The source has confided that Law Ministry will be playing a pivotal role in the new strategy. Hence, it was important to replace Afzal Sindhu with Dr Babar Awan as law minister. The NAB beneficiaries in the government ganged together in ousting veteran PPP leader Afzal Sindhu. “Muhammad Afzal Sindhu, a veteran PPP leader having the distinction of being a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee during the days of late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, is a respected lawyer and constitutional philosopher and was unlikely to agree to being part of this dirty game plan, hence he was sent to the Ministry of Railways last month,” the sources pointed out.
Secondly, under the same strategy the government will not take any step for reopening of cases in the Swiss court as was directed by the Supreme Court in its short order declared the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) void ab initio,” pointed out the source.
According to the source, had the government been serious in implementation of the Supreme Court, there was no need to wait for the detail judgment.
Thirdly, he said, the government has not appointed Justice (Retd) Khalilur Rehman Ramday as ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court as recommended by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Advice of the chief justice was shelved by Law Ministry.
The recent spree of aggressive statements by Mr Zardari and PPP leadership is in a wake of being not sure about how army may react if SC throws ‘NAB beneficiaries’ out in a bid to make Pakistan corruption free and ensure that corruption is rooted out of society.
They are confident that their aggressive posture will make the military to refuse abiding by the Supreme Court order in case Article 190 of the Constitution is invoked by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the source elaborated.
It may be recalled that Article 190 has so far been invoked only twice and on both the occasions, the military sided with the executive instead of abiding by the orders of the chief justice. He recalled that when Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had invoked Article 190 as chief judge, the-then chief of army staff Gen Jehangir Karamat had forwarded the court order to the Ministry of Defence for further process and hence the military defied the court order because Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif held the portfolio of the minister for defence at that time.
On the second occasion, a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had ordered the state machinery including the corps and formation commanders of the Army on November 3, 2007 not to abide by any unconstitutional order of Gen Pervez Musharraf. But the Army defied the court order and a new Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) was issued by Musharraf, imposing martial law on the pretext of emergency, which was also described as emergency plus.
The source said that top advisers of the rulers are currently weighing all the available options but majority of them believes that there is no provision in the constitution for the restoration of a chief justice and the executive order through which the judges were restored could be withdrawn anytime.
It is, however, pertinent to recall here that the federal law secretary, while reading out the two notifications of March 17, 2009, had said as all the deposed judges were reinstated to the position of November 2, 2007, they were not required to take fresh oath. REFERENCE: No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification 19 Jan 2010 … ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief … http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=26750 No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification Tuesday January 19, 2010 (1035 PST) http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?223604 Breaking News: The News (Jang Group) removes its 19 January 2010 false story to escape legal action 16 October 2010
Another aspect of the judgment By Asma Jahangir Saturday, 19 Dec, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/another-aspect-of-the-judgment-929
The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has once again stirred a hornet’s nest. There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall effect of the judgment itself. While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial.
Witch-hunts, rather than the impartial administration of justice, will keep the public amused. The norms of justice will be judged by the level of humiliation meted out to the wrongdoers, rather than strengthening institutions capable of protecting the rights of the people. There is no doubt that impunity for corruption and violence under the cover of politics and religion has demoralised the people, fragmented society and taken several lives. It needs to be addressed but through consistency, without applying different standards, and by scrupulously respecting the dichotomy of powers within statecraft. In this respect the fine lines of the judgment do not bode well.
The lawyers’ movement and indeed the judiciary itself has often lamented that the theory of separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive has not been respected. The NRO judgment has disturbed the equilibrium by creating an imbalance in favour of the judiciary. The judgment has also sanctified the constitutional provisions of a dictator that placed a sword over the heads of the parliamentarians. Moreover, it has used the principle of ‘closed and past transactions’ selectively. It is not easy to comprehend the logic of the Supreme Court that in a previous judgment it went beyond its jurisdiction to grant life to ordinances — including the NRO — protected by Musharraf’s emergency to give an opportunity to parliament to enact them into law. If the NRO was violative of fundamental rights and illegal ab initio, then whether the parliament enacted it or not it would have eventually been struck down. By affording parliament an opportunity to own up to the NRO appears to be a jeering gesture unbecoming of judicial propriety.
The NRO judgment has struck down the law also for being violative of Article 62(f), which requires a member of parliament to be, ‘Sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen’. Hence, the bench will now judge the moral standing of parliamentarians on these stringent standards set by the notorious Zia regime. This article of the constitution has always been considered undemocratic and a tool to keep members of parliament insecure. If parliamentarians, who also go through the rigorous test of contesting elections in the public domain, are to be subjected to such exacting moral standards then the scrutiny of judges should be higher still.
After all, judges are selected purely on the value of their integrity and skills. Judges who erred in the past seek understanding on the plea that they subsequently suffered and have made amends. Should others also not be given the same opportunity to turn over a new leaf? How will sagacity and non-profligate behaviour be judged?
Apart from Dr Mubashar Hasan, not even the petitioners of the NRO case are likely to pass the strenuous test laid down in Article 62 of the constitution. This could well beg the question whether it is wise for those in glass houses to be pelting stones.The judgment goes much further. It has assumed a monitoring rather than a supervisory role over NAB cases. In India, the supreme court directly interfered in the Gujarat massacre but it did not make monitoring cells within the superior courts. Is it the function of the superior courts to sanctify the infamous NAB ordinance, the mechanism itself and to restructure it with people of their liking? It is true that the public has greater trust in the judiciary than in any other institution of the state, but that neither justifies encroachment on the powers of the executive or legislature nor does it assist in keeping an impartial image of the judiciary. The long-term effects of the judgment could also be counter-productive; perpetrators are often viewed as victims if justice is not applied in an even-handed manner and if administered in undue haste with overwhelming zeal. It is therefore best to let the various intuitions of state take up their respective responsibilities because eventually it is the people who are the final arbiters of everyone’s performance.
’عدلیہ غیر جانب دار نہیں رہی‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعـء, 19 فروری, 2010, 05:58 GMT 10:58 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/02/100218_asma_interview.shtml
’عدلیہ دائرہ کار سے تجاوز کر گئی ہے‘
علی سلمان
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لاہور
عدلیہ کا کام ارکانِ پارلیمان کی اخلاقیات کی جانچ پڑتال نہیں
آخری وقت اشاعت: ہفتہ, 19 دسمبر, 2009, 05:25 GMT 10:25 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/12/091219_hrcp_asma_as.shtml
پاکستان انسانی حقوق کمشن کی چیئرپرسن عاصمہ جہانگیر نے این آر او کے بارے میں سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے پر تبصرہ کرتے ہوئے کہا ہے ’عدلیہ اپنے دائرہ کار سے تجاوز کرگئی ہے اوریہ بہت ہی خطرناک بات ہوگی کہ سپریم کورٹ اراکین پارلیمان کی اخلاقیات پر فیصلے دے۔‘
عاصمہ جہانگیر نے بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام سے گفتگو کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ جس طریقے سے فیصلہ آیا اور مانیٹرنگ سیل بنائے گئے اور سارے اراکین پارلیمان کو ایک طرح سے وارننگ دی گئی کہ ان کے کردار کی چھان بین ہوسکے گی ’وہ سمجھتی ہیں کہ عدلیہ اپنے دائرے سے باہر نکلی ہے۔‘
انہوں نے کہا وہ اس بات کی توقع نہیں رکھتی تھیں کہ عدلیہ اب اس بات کی جانچ پڑتال شروع کردے گی کہ ممبران کے اخلاقیات کیا ہیں۔
عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہا کہ اراکین اسمبلی تو الیکشن لڑ کر آتے ہیں لیکن جج تو اپنی ساکھ کی وجہ سے آتے ہیں اگر ممبران پارلیمان کے لیے معیار اتنا بلند کردیا جائے کہ کوئی اس پر پورا نہ اتر سکے تو پھر عدلیہ کا معیار تو اس سے بھی بہت بلند ہونا چاہیے۔
انسانی حقوق کمشن پاکستان کی سربراہ نے کہا کہ ’یہ جوڈیشل ایکٹوازم نہیں ہے بلکہ عدلیہ اپنی اتھارٹی کو بہت زیادہ آگے لے گئی ہے۔اب اس نے مانیٹرنگ سیل قائم کرنے کی بات کر دی ہے۔یہ بھی دیکھا جائے گا کہ کس میکنزم کے مطابق کام ہوگا۔‘
’عدلیہ کی سپرویژن تو ہوتی ہے لیکن مانیٹرنگ سیل ہم نے آج تک نہیں دیکھا کہ اس طریقے بنائے گئے ہوں۔‘
انہوں نے کہا کہ وہ سمجھتی ہیں کہ تقسیم اختیارات کا نظریہ متاثر ہوا ہے۔’عدلیہ کو اپنے رویے پر غور کرنا چاہیے اس کا اپنا ایک مقام ہے اور اسے اپنے اس مقام پر واپس چلے جانا چاہیے۔وہ کسی خاص معاملے یا کیس میں اپنی دلچسپی نہ دکھائے۔‘
’وہ انصاف ضرور کریں لیکن یہ مخصوص نہ ہو بلکہ مساویانہ انداز سے ہونا چاہیے کیونکہ یہ نہ صرف ملک کے لیےبلکہ خود ان کے لیے بھی اچھا نہیں ہوگا۔‘
ایک سوال کے جواب میں انہوں نے کہا کہ وہ اس فیصلے کے خلاف اسی صورت میں اپیل کرسکتی تھیں جب اس عدالت سے بڑی بھی کوئی عدالت ہوتی۔انہوں نے کہا کہ سپریم کورٹ کے سترہ رکنی بنچ نے ایسا فیصلہ سنا دیا ہے جس کی کہیں اپیل بھی نہیں ہوسکتی۔
’انسان آخر انسان ہوتا ہے اس سے غلطی ہوسکتی ہے اسی لیے اپیل کا حق رکھا جاتا ہے۔ یہ بھی سوچنے کی بات ہے کہ اتنے بڑے فیصلے کردیئے جائیں اور اس کی کہیں اپیل بھی نہ ہوسکے۔‘
انہوں کہا کہ وہ یہ نہیں کہتیں کہ عدلیہ فیصلے نہ دے لیکن جو بھی کرے بہت سوچ سمجھ کر کرے۔
عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہا کہ اس سے کوئی انکار نہیں کرسکتا کہ جن لوگوں نے لوٹ مار کی ہے ان کے مقدمات عدالتوں میں چلنے چاہیے اور یوں اجتماعی معافی نہیں ہونی چاہیے لیکن عدلیہ نے جس انداز میں فیصلے کیے ہیں اس پر انہیں تحفظات ہیں۔
دریں اثناء انسانی حقوق کمشن آف پاکستان نے ایک بیان جاری کیا ہے جس میں بعض افراد کے بیرون ملک نقل وحرکت پر پابندی کو بنیادی حق کی خلاف ورزی قرار دیا ہے اور کہا ہے کہ کمشن کو اس بات پر پریشانی ہے کہ حکام نے ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ آرڈیننس کا اطلاق کردیا ہے جسے کبھی بھی منصفانہ نہیں سمجھا گیا۔کمشن کی سربراہ عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہاکہ پیشگی نوٹس اور مناسب وجوہات بیان کیے بغیر پابندی عائد کرنا اس بنیادی حق کی خلاف ورزی ہے جس کی ضمانت ملک کا آئین دیتا ہے۔انہوں نے کہا کہ جن لوگوں کے خلاف عدلیہ میں مقدمات چل رہے ہوں ان کے بیرون ملک سفر پر پابندی عائد کرنا ضروری نہیں ہے ان کے فرار کو روکنے کے لیے عدالت میں قانونی سطح پر یقین دہانی حاصل کی جاسکتی ہے۔انہوں نے کہا کہ ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ کو ماضی میں سیاسی طور پر حراساں کرنے کے لیےاستعمال کیا جاتا رہا ہے اور اب ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ کا عدالتی فیصلے کی آڑ میں من مانے طریقے سے استعمال کسی آفت سے کم نہیں سمجھا جائے گا۔انہوں نے کہا کہ قومی دولت لوٹنے والوں کے خلاف جو قانونی کارروائی کی جارہی ہے وہ کافی ہے، حکام کو بے جا غصے اور جوش میں آکر ایسے ناجائز اقدام نہیں کرنے چاہیے جنہیں وہ انصاف سمجھتے ہوں۔
’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/09/090907_kurd_hit_judiciary_rr.shtml
Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
عدلیہ انتظامیہ جھگڑے میں نیا موڑ
رفاقت علی
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لندن
آخری وقت اشاعت: اتوار, 14 فروری, 2010, 22:17 GMT 03:17 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/02/100213_judiciary_executive.shtml
سپریم کورٹ نے خود کئی بار ججز کیس کی دھجیاں بکھیریں اور ایک بار
تو لاہور ہائی کے ایک ایسے جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر دیا جن کا ہائی کورٹ میں ججوں کی سینارٹی لسٹ پر سولہواں نمبر تھا۔ جب سپریم کورٹ میں ججز کیسز کی واضح خلاف ورزی کو چیلنج کیا گیا تو سپریم کورٹ نے حکم صادر کیا کہ وہ کسی جج کو سپریم کورٹ کا جج بنا سکتی ہے۔ ججوں کی تعیناتی کے سلسلے میں سپریم کورٹ نے اپنی ضرورت کےمطابق کئی متضاد فیصلے صارد کر رکھے ہیں اور شاید موجودہ سپریم کورٹ کو بھی ’پی سی او سپریم کورٹ‘ کےایک فیصلے کا بھی سہارا لینا پڑے گا جس کے تحت صدر کے اس اختیار کو مانا گیا تھا کہ وہ ہائی کورٹ کے سینئر جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر سکتا ہے۔
چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان جسٹس افتخار محمد چودھری جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا چیف جسٹس رکھنے پر کیوں بضد ہیں اس کا کسی کو علم نہیں ہے۔ جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو میاں نواز شریف کے دور حکومت میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا تھا۔
لاہور ہائی کے سینئر جج جسٹس میاں ثاقب نثار کو بھی نواز شریف دور میں ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا۔ جسٹس ثاقب نثار میاں نواز شریف دور کے وزیرِ قانون خالد انور کے جونیئر تھے اور اسی دور حکومت میں انہوں نے سیکرٹری قانون کا قلمدان بھی سنبھالے رکھا
PAKISTAN: International Commission of Jurists http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/pakistan.pdf
The independence of the judiciary was largely undermined by the order by General Musharraf in January 2000 that Pakistani judges take a fresh oath of loyalty to his administration. In May 2000, the Supreme Court, reconstituted after the dismissal of six judges who refused the oath, upheld General Musharraf’s military coup of 1999, under the doctrine of state necessity. Pakistan is a constitutional republic. On 15 October 1999, the Government promulgated the Provisional Constitution Order, (PCO), No.1 of 1999, overriding the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, previously suspended following the 12 October 1999 military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The PCO provided for the suspension of the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate and mandated General Musharraf to serve as the new Chief Executive.
On 20 June 2001, General Musharraf became President of Pakistan after dismissing the incumbent President, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar. On 12 May 2000, the Supreme Court validated the October 1999 coup under the doctrine of state necessity. However, the Court ordered that the Government hold national and provincial elections by 12 October 2002. In response, President Musharraf presented a four-phase programme aimed at returning the country to democratic rule, with local elections to be held from December 2000 until August 2001. Subsequently, a series of local elections were held in December 2000, March 2001, May 2001 and July-August 2001. However, political parties were prohibited from participating in the contests and party leaders were disqualified from holding political office.
State of Affairs of Labour Laws in Pakistan, Chief Justice and Violation of International Labour Laws
No forum left to agitate service matters By Mahmood Zaman
January 16, 2007 Tuesday Zilhaj 25, 1427
LAHORE, Jan 15: All the federal and provincial employees, both officers and subordinate staff across the country, working in government departments and corporations established under an act of parliament, have been left with no judicial forum to agitate their grievances in service matters.
Amendments made to different labour laws and judicial bodies since 1997 have virtually banned trade union activities and substantially curtailed the jurisdiction of labour courts, provincial labour appellate tribunals, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and other such forums.
As a result, private and public employees and workmen have been left with almost no remedy in case of dispute with the management. Similarly, the changes in laws have hit trade union activities.
They were barred from approaching the Federal Service Tribunal after the Service Tribunal Act of 1973 was amended on June 10, 1997, to insert sections 2(a) and 2-A to define a civil servant afresh. The new law enunciated that service under an authority, corporation, body or organisation established by a federal law or owned or controlled by the federal government or in which the federal government has interests, is declared as service of Pakistan and those holding posts in such departments shall be civil servants.
However, the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, ordained that the employees in federal and provincial service shall not be entitled to agitate labour courts to get their service disputes settled. The new IRO also removed the employees of the Pakistan Railways, Wapda and other public corporations from the labour courts judicial review.
As a result, the employees working with statutory federal and provincial departments and corporations are no more entitled to move the Federal Service Tribunal and labour courts.
The situation has also been clarified by superior courts which have held that only the employees of offices established under the constitution are civil servants and they alone are entitled to constitutional protection. Such offices include the president’s and the prime minister’s secretariats, establishments working under provincial governors and chief ministers and the Supreme Court and high courts.
Such a decision was given by a Supreme Court bench, comprising then Chief Justice A R Cornelius and Justice Hamoodur Rehman, on March 31, 1964, in a petition for leave to appeal filed by a PIA employee against the decision of the Sindh High Court which refused to entertain his writ petition against his removal from his office. The judgment (reported in 1971 SCMR 568) said that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was an employee of a corporation which was a statutory body and did not enjoy the protection of the constitution (of 1956). The apex court did not grant the petitioner leave to appeal with the observation that the petitioner was not a member of a central or provincial All-Pakistan Service which alone was the public service.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of these employees moved the provincial high courts throughout the country in writ petitions against the orders of the labour courts which rejected their petitions on the ground that the IRO 2002 did not entitle them to agitate their disputes with those courts. The high courts have also raised the question of the writ petitions in the light of the Supreme Court observations in the decision announced in March 1964. The high courts have during the proceedings held that they are not entitled to agitate their grievances through writ petitions as they do not enjoy the constitutional protection.
LABOUR LAWS: The industrial workers and officers enjoyed legislative and judicial protection under the laws enacted in 1973, the year which saw a number of pro-labour laws being enacted. All government officers were entitled to move the Federal Service Tribunal without discrimination and the subordinate staff was provided with the right to agitate their disputes with labour courts.
The legal cover to the workforce continued till 1980 when the WAPDA Act of 1958 was amended to insert section 17-A which provided that Wapda employees, including workmen, were permitted only to move the Federal Service Tribunal and they had no entitlement to approach labour courts.
In 1993, the Pakistan Railways Act was amended to declare that the open-line network and infrastructure ancillary to the PR track across the country was a Ministry of Defence service where trade union activity could not be allowed.
The new legislation thus excluded the two major employers from the judicial review to a great degree.
Come 1997 and the government amended the Civil Servants Act of 1973 to insert section 2-1(a) and 2-1(b) to redefine the civil servant who “is a member of the All-Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the federation or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the federation…”. They excluded deputationists, work-charge and contractual employees and those who were workmen. Lastly, a new IRO was enforced in 2002 which incorporated all the changes in the laws. The IRO also debarred all the employees of departments and corporations, established under an act of parliament, from the jurisdiction of the labour courts. As a result, the employees of the departments, other than those established under the 1973 Constitution, now had no judicial forum to agitate their disputes.
The legal position was explained by the Supreme Court through a judgment in January 2006 in as many as 600 appeals filed by the officers and employees of the Pakistan Railways, Wapda and other public corporations against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal which rejected their petitions for rights and privileges enjoyed by ‘civil servants’.
A nine-member full bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, held that the appellants were not civil servants as defined in section 2-1(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus had no remedy available before the Federal Service Tribunal.
As for the alternative remedy, the apex court said that the cases decided finally by the SC would not be re-opened and review petitions would be heard independently. All other appeals, the judgment said, shall stand abated.
CIVIL COURT: As for the alternative remedy, the only opportunity available to them is the civil court under the doctrine of master and servant, as held by the Supreme Court in an appeal by a Wapda employee decided in 1991 and reported in 1993 SCMR 346 by a SC bench headed by Justice Ajmal Mian. The judgment said when a statutory corporation did not frame service rules and enjoyed the discretion of being the sole arbitrator in regulating service terms and conditions, no suit or writ petition would be competent. In such a case, the Supreme Court held, the remedy available to the employee is under the doctrine of ‘master and servant’ in suit for damages (before a civil court). As a consequence, the employees are left with the only remedy of moving a civil court in a suit of damages.
REACTION: All-Pakistan Workers Confederation secretary-general Khursheed Ahmad said that denying the right for redressal of grievances was unconstitutional.
Talking to Dawn on Monday, Ahmad said that door of all the judicial forums now stood closed on hundreds of thousands of employees of public sector corporations through successive changes in different laws which was a gross injustice. Such a situation was frustrating where social security institutions stood weakened and the government was also not giving unemployment allowance to the jobless.
Ahmad, who heads a united front of eight nationwide trade union federations, said employees in public and private sectors had virtually been left on the the mercy of managements.
The PWC secretary-general also mentioned the President (Special Powers for Removal from Service) Ordinance, 2000, saying it was a repressive law which empowered the federal government to remove any employee from service without serving him or her a show-cause notice and giving him an opportunity of defence.
SOURCE: DAILY DAWN PAKISTAN.
URL: http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/16/nat38.htm
Land allotments: Verbal orders trump proper procedure Rauf Klasra Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2010.
ISLAMABAD: The issue of land allotments to the higher judiciary took a new turn after it was disclosed before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that residential plots worth millions of rupees were allotted to three top judges apparently without completing mandatory legal formalities. As the official files of the Federal Government Employees’ Housing Foundation (FGEHF) do not contain the dates of birth of the judges, the question of allotments on verbal orders, as opposed to proper procedure, comes to the fore.
The set criteria requires an applicant to fill out an official form and give an affidavit that he or she does not own other plots or houses in the city. According to the official documents placed before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), copies of which are available with The Express Tribune, the three judges are former chief justice of Pakistan Sheikh Riaz Ahmed and Lahore High Court (LHC) judges Faqeer Mohammad Khokar and Justice Mumtaz Ali Mirza. Ahmed was allotted a one-kanal (approximately 600 square yards) plot on November 17, 2002, in G-14/4, while Khokar and Mirza got plots in G -14. This flouting of rules raises several questions over the allotment process and its transparency. One hundred judges, including the current Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, have been allotted plots in Islamabad since 1996, but these three judges were allotted plots without fulfilling legalities.
An official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that missing records meant that these judges had not filled out the proper official forms. “It seems that orders were verbally issued and immediately obeyed by the [allotment] authorities,” the source said. “The top guns of the FGEHF clearly failed to follow the rules and simply obliged the sitting judges of the Supreme Court (SC) and the LHC.” The missing record, the source said, showed that the housing ministry was unaware of when these judges were born and joined the judiciary, and whether they were retired or were still serving. The documents reveal that the FGEHF allotted plots in the same manner to some civilian officials, whose dates of birth were also missing from the records.
One of these officials is Nadeem Shah Malik who was working as a financial adviser to the ministry of housing and works. He was allotted a plot in Sector G-13/2 on December 22, 2009. Nine other civilian employees were also allotted plots in Sector G-14 despite incomplete records. These officials are Khalida Begum (Intelligence Bureau), Rashida Begum (Pakistan Post), Aziza Begum (finance ministry), Resham Jaan (Survey of Pakistan), Shamim Akhtar (finance division), Fehmida Begum (Pakistan Post), Ziat Maman (customs department), Sardari Begum (Pakistan Post), Maryam (agriculture department). Earlier, media reports said that some well-connected SC judges tampered with the FGEHF’s official records and received a second plot each. The reports claimed that several critical files, which contained official records of expensive government plots allotted to bigwigs of Islamabad such as [now retired] Justice Sardar Raza Khan, were missing. Evidence surfaced that in Justice Raza’s case, the process of balloting was scrapped and he was given a multimillion-rupee corner plot of his choice. The then FGEHF director-general Arshad Mirza, a District Management Group officer and a relative of Justice Raza, was accused of tampering with Justice Raza’s records to enable him to acquire a second plot. These reports were never challenged. After reading these media reports, PAC chairperson Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had ordered an inquiry against Mirza, a report of which is also pending before the PAC. Amid this scam, Mirza was also removed from office.
Saturday, November 27, 2010, Zilhajj 20, 1431 A.H
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/nov2010-daily/27-11-2010/main.htm
A quick look at the list reveals that majority of the judges got residential plots in Islamabad when they were serving in the high courts. JUDGES: Following are Supreme Court judges who got plots: Justice (retd) Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Justice (retd) Manzoor Hussain Sial, Justice Saad Saud Jan, Justice Fazal Elahi Khan, Justice Abdul Hafeez Memon, Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan, Justice Moahmmad Bashir Jahangiri, Justice Saeeduzzam Siddiqi. Besides, the following judges of the four provincial high courts also got plots.
Justice Dilawar Mahmood (Ministry of Labour), Justice Abdul Karim Khan Kundi (PHC), Justice Mian Ghulam Ahmed (LHC), Justice Agha Saifuddin Khan (SHC), Justice Kazi Hameeduin (PHC), Justice Arif Iqbal Bhatti (LHC), Justice Syed Ibne Ali (PHC), Justice Mohammad Aqil Mirza (LHC), Justice Sheikh Mohammad Zuabir (LHC), Justice Abdul Hafeez Cheema (LHC), Justice Sharif Hussain Bokhari (LHC), Justice Abdul Rehman Khan (LHC), Justice Mohammad Islam Bhatti (LHC), Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam (SHC), Justice Sajjad Ahmed Sipra (LHC), Justice Mahboob Ali Khan (PHC), Justice Ali Mohammad Baloch (SHC), Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq (PHC), Justice (R) Mohamamd Nasim (LHC), Justice Munir A Sheikh (LHC), Justice Fida Mohammad Khan (Federal Sharaiat Court), Justice Tanveer Ahmed Khan (LHC), Justice Amir Alim Khan (LHC), Justice Ehsanul Haq Ch (LHC), Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi (LHC), Justice Mian Nazir Akthar (LHC), Justice Ahmed Ali Mirza (SHC), Justice Raja Mohammad Sabir (LHC), Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari (LHC), Justice Rashid Aziz Khan (LHC), Justice Munwar Ahmed Mirza (BHC), Justice Bhagwandas (SHC), Justice Mohammad Nawaz Marri (BHC), Justice Nawaz Khan Gandapur (PHC), Justice Nawaz Abbasi (LHC), Justice Falaksher (LHC), Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar (SHC), Justice Khailur Rehman Ramday, Justice Malik Qayyum (LHC), Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza (PHC), Justice Amir Mulk Mengal (BHC), Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar Hussain (LHC), Justice Mohammad Khursheed Khan (Chief Court Northern Areas) and Justice Mohammad Khial (Ombudsman office) also got plots in the federal capital.
JOURNALISTS: Sohail Ilyas, Mujeebur Rehman Shami, Abdul Ghani Ch, Zia Shahid, Rukhsana Saulat Saleem, Mohammad Anwar Khalil, Abdul Wadood Qureshi, Mian Ghaffar Ahmed, Rana Tahir Mahmood, Malik Abdul Rehman Hur, Nadeem Fazil Khan, Hamad Raza Shami, Farooq Ahmed, Rana Assar Ali Chohan, Azeem Chaudhry, Aslam Khan, Mohammad Naeem Chaudhry, Mohammad Aniq Zafar, Abdul Saeed Khan Qamar, Mohammad Dilshaad Khan, Naveed Miraj, Tahir Masood Ikram, Sultan Mohammad Sabir, Saghir Khalid, Mazhar Barlas, Maqbool Elahi Malik, Mohammad Arshad Yousuf, Javed Iqbal Qureshi, Haroon Rashid, Malik Shakeelur Rehman Hur, Wajid Rasool, Ashfaq Ahmed, Mohammad Zahid Jhangvi, Tahir Khalil, Khalid Azeem Ch, Mian Khursheeduzaman, Abdul Mohi Shah, Hilal Ahmed, Khalid Sial, Amir Iyas Rana, Zamir Hussain Shah, Aziz Ahmed Alvi, Ahmed Hussain, Rafaqat Ali, Syed Najamul Islam Rizvi, Mohsin Raza Khan, Irfan Ahmed Qureshi, Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah Kunwal, Nasir Aslam Raja, Mohammad Arshad, Ch Iylas Mohammad, Ghazanfar Ali Zaidi, Fazeela Gul, Iftikar Shakeel, Syed Ejaz Shah, Mohammad Ayub Nasir, Mohammad Saleem and Tariq Aziz. REFERENCES: New list of plot beneficiaries presented in Senate Saturday, January 16, 2010 By our correspondent http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=219055 Journalist and Plots, read page 4 of Daily Jang Friday, January 15, 2010, Muharram 28, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jan2010-daily/15-01-2010/main4.htm The News Senate gets list of judges, bureaucrats who got two plots each Friday, January 15, 2010 By Rauf Klasra http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=218849 Myth busted: Chief justice also got a plot Rauf Klasra Published in The Express Tribune, November 25th, 2010. http://tribune.com.pk/story/81570/myth-busted-chief-justice-also-got-a-plot/
ISLAMABAD: Some elected representatives can only be seen at meetings of the parliamentary committee on reforms or television shows: the National Assembly remains the last place for such bigwigs to show up at. Renaming parliament as ‘Hyde Park’ might not be a bad idea considering that hardly 25 percent lawmakers attend the session, and if we go by the attendance of a 100-strong cabinet, the percentage of their attendance might not cross the figure of 10, according to an appropriate comment by a member of a parliamentary watchdog organisation. Nevertheless, the prime minister’s 100 percent attendance record need not be ignored, especially because he is the one who is trying his level best to keep the system from falling apart. Leaving the buttering aside, we saw a little brouhaha in the House right from the outset: a minority representative from PPP benches and others objected to a political comment by Lahore High Court’s ‘My Lord’. Chief Justice Khawaja Sharif was reportedly commenting on the involvement of minorities in bombings across the country. Minority members from the ANP, PPP and the PML-N staged a token walkout to register their protest, and asked My Lord to clarify or apologise to patriotic minorities of the country.
The demand for an apology was soon backed by another identical demand for Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.
An inside story of yesterday’s ‘call-on’ was making rounds in the cafeteria about the infamous last-minute call from the Rawalpindi Garrisons to Shahbaz Sharif and his 15-minute stay with ‘the man in uniform’. The meeting was crispy, to the point and ended with a ‘you may leave’ note, said the moles. A party insider disclosed that there is nothing wrong with the ADC calling SS to see the chief. He said both Sharifs have been so used to landing at the GHQ since the Ziaul Haq days that they often forget democracy has returned to the country. He said SS, in particular, loved to have tea in the lush green lawns of the army houses, and whenever he left Model town, in the old days, or Jati Umra, now, he would call the ADC to enjoy habitual tea with the chief. Whether he justified yesterday’s quick-fix or revealed more kept every one of us amused. What remained an issue bugging parliamentarians and journalists alike afterwards was that at least there was someone who could get things fixed, be it the lawyers’ led long march of March 16, 2009, or divergence from tracks, when it comes to politicians, but will someone be able to curtail the political statements of My Lords? A former black-coat-turned senator said in a philosophical tone, “The nation is being collectively punished for the policies of khakis and politicians through suicide bombings, and now the judiciary has thought that it too should pay back the nation for the mistakes of the same actors who elevated their political favourites, some even contested as local bodies councillors on party tickets, to judicial pedestals.” Keeping his pitch, he questioned who would now take suo motu notice of the politicisation of our judiciary, the current CJP or those who helped him regain the post? Who helped him was a question in chorus and realizing that his tongue should not slip like Khawaja Sharif or his Kashmiri brother Shahbaz Sharif, he said “of course, the masses.”
Realising that the senator had gone into cautious mode, one of his fellow senators from a leftist party said that activisms didn’t have a long shelf life in this country. We have seen left parties, then the military, then the political parties and now the judiciary, and without any hassle, one can conclude that ultimately, with the exception of the military, none other has survived the hijacking by vested interests, he said in an attempt to add a twist to the debate. By that time the first senator regrouped his thoughts to announce that another goody-goody atmosphere is emerging, as the PML-N members would start listening to Gilani in addition to sharing the subsidy-marred coffers of Punjab with the PPP ministers. He said that following the ‘call on’, Chaudhry Nisar had been immediately asked to re-connect the lost connections with Gilani, and he did so at last night’s dinner hosted by Ghulam Bilour. Now, Ishaq Dar, Chaudhry Nisar and SS would have a meeting with the premier and in the coming days, Nawaz Sharif, would resurface as another father of the reconciliation agenda. While the answer to if there will be any memorandum of understanding (MoU) for My Lords remains elusive, it is not impossible and “just before taking a commercial break, let me tell you someone out there is keeping a log book on all of them.” REFERENCE: Is there any MoU for My Lords? By Saeed Minhas Wednesday, March 17, 2010 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20103\17\story_17-3-2010_pg7_1
ISLAMABAD: A reported statement by Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Khawaja Muhammad Sharif that the Hindu community was funding terrorism in Pakistan, irked members of the National Assembly, as many of whom joined minority members and walked out in protest. The lawmakers also demanded Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry take suo motu notice of the CJ’s remarks. Ramesh Lal, a minority lawmaker from the Pakistan People’s Party, raised the issue on a point of order and censured the CJ’s remarks, saying the Hindu community in Pakistan was as patriotic as the rest of the country and the remarks were highly uncalled for. Lal announced a token walkout and was joined by a few other members belonging to different parties, including the Awami National Party. He said the remarks hurt the over three million Hindus in Pakistan, adding the statement was against national unity. Labour and Manpower Minister Khursheed Shah tried to defend the CJ, saying he could not have made such a statement and might have referred to India and not the Hindu community. REFERENCE: LHC CJ’s remarks irk NA members Wednesday, March 17, 2010 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20103\17\story_17-3-2010_pg7_6
Myth busted: Chief justice also got a plot Rauf Klasra Published in The Express Tribune, November 25th, 2010. http://tribune.com.pk/story/81570/myth-busted-chief-justice-also-got-a-plot/
Justice Chaudhry allotted plot soon after 2002 elections
ISLAMABAD: The accountability body of the Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), has received an official report from the Housing Ministry that shatters an eight-year-old perception that the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) has never been given a piece of land by the government.
CJP Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was allotted a one-kanal plot during former President General Pervez Musharraf’s reign – which he owns to date in Islamabad’s residential sector G-14/4.
Though it was recently reported that a number of judges – including several former chief justices of Pakistan such as Riaz Ahmed Sheikh, Ajmal Mian, Irshad Hassan Khan and others – had been allotted plots in Islamabad since 1996, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was the only name not seen in the lists.
It was also widely disseminated through the media that the incumbent chief justice had not been given a plot. However, an allotment to the CJP was made soon after the 2002 general elections – which took place after the Supreme Court had endorsed the October 12, 1999, coup and gave sweeping mandate to General Pervez Musharraf to amend the Constitution. A list compiled by the housing ministry of plot allotments to bureaucrats, judges and journalists spread over hundreds of pages, available with The Express Tribune, shows that Justice Chaudhry, then a Supreme Court judge, was given a one kanal plot on Dec 18, 2002 – six days after his 54th birthday.
The official documents further reveal that the then CJP Sheikh Riaz Ahmed was also allotted a plot on Dec 17, 2002, while two judges of the Lahore High Court, Justice Faqeer Mohammad Khokar and Justice Mumtaz Ali Mirza were also allotted plots in G-14 on the same day.
The report about the allotment of plots was submitted by the housing ministry after the Public Accounts Committee chairman Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had issued directives to furnish a list of all those who were allotted plots in Islamabad since 1996.
Interestingly, Nisar did not seek a list of such allotments from 1991 when Nawaz Sharif, his party’s chief, had first become the prime minister. He also did not direct the ministry of defence to submit a list of land allotted to military generals who have been regularly getting agricultural land in the fertile areas of the country, the Seraiki region in particular, at a rate of under Rs180 per acre.
One official was of the opinion that Nisar did not issue such instructions as he has a military background himself. His father was recruited during the colonial period and his brother Lt. Gen. Iftikhar Ali Khan served as defence secretary during Sharif’s government.
However, the papers presented before the PAC reveal that, unlike the other 15 judges of the SC, Justice Chaudhry did not take a second plot in Islamabad. This despite the fact that under the revised policy of the government, approved by then prime minister Shaukat Aziz, he and his colleagues were entitled to two plots. CJ Chaudhry also did not apply for a plot under the curious recent scheme of the “Prime Minister Assistance Package”, meant exclusively for judges – unlike the 17 other judges of the Supreme Court who got plots through this scheme.
The present government is said to have also offered to allot a second plot to the CJP – but he has declined the offer. At the time of his refusal, it was widely reported in the media that he did not own any plots in Islamabad – a ‘fact’ that has now, given the official list of the housing ministry, been rebuffed.
Judicial Coup in Pakistan – Once a democratic champion, the Chief Justice now undermines the elected government. by DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY FEBRUARY 23, 2010, 7:51 P.M. ET http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704057604575080593268166402.html Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington, D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan andGeorge H.W. Bush administrations.
When U.S. President Barack Obama sharply challenged a recent Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union address, prompting a soto voce rejoinder from Justice Samuel Alito, nobody was concerned that the contretemps would spark a blood feud between the judiciary and the executive. The notion that judges could or would work to undermine a sitting U.S. president is fundamentally alien to America’s constitutional system and political culture. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan.Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the country’s erstwhile hero, is the leading culprit in an unfolding constitutional drama. It was Mr. Chaudhry’s dismissal by then-President Pervez Musharraf in 2007 that triggered street protests by lawyers and judges under the twin banners of democracy and judicial independence. This effort eventually led to Mr. Musharraf’s resignation in 2008. Yet it is now Mr. Chaudhry himself who is violating those principles, having evidently embarked on a campaign to undermine and perhaps even oust President Asif Ali Zardari.
Any involvement in politics by a sitting judge, not to mention a chief justice, is utterly inconsistent with an independent judiciary’s proper role. What is even worse, Chief Justice Chaudhry has been using the court to advance his anti-Zardari campaign. Two recent court actions are emblematic of this effort. The first is a decision by the Supreme Court, announced and effective last December, to overturn the “National Reconciliation Ordinance.” The NRO, which was decreed in October 2007, granted amnesty to more than 8,000 members from all political parties who had been accused of corruption in the media and some of whom had pending indictments. While some of these people are probably corrupt, many are not and, in any case, politically inspired prosecutions have long been a bane of Pakistan’s democracy. The decree is similar to actions taken by many other fledgling democracies, such as post-apartheid South Africa, to promote national reconciliation. It was negotiated with the assistance of the United States and was a key element in Pakistan’s transition from a military dictatorship to democracy. Chief Justice Chaudhry’s decision to overturn the NRO, opening the door to prosecute President Zardari and all members of his cabinet, was bad enough. But the way he did it was even worse. Much to the dismay of many of the brave lawyers who took to the streets to defend the court’s integrity last year, Mr. Chaudhry’s anti-NRO opinion also blessed a highly troubling article of Pakistan’s Constitution—Article 62. This Article, written in 1985, declared that members of parliament are disqualified from serving if they are not of “good character,” if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” do not practice “teachings and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam,” and if they are not “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate.” For non-Muslims, the Article requires that they have “a good moral reputation.”
Putting aside the fact that Article 62 was promulgated by Pakistan’s then ruling military dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, relying on religion-based standards as “Islamic injunctions” or inherently subjective criteria as “good moral reputation” thrusts thePakistani Supreme Court into an essentially religious domain, not unlike Iranian Sharia-based courts. This behavior is profoundly ill-suited for any secular court. While Article 62 was not formally repealed, it was discredited and in effect, a dead letter. The fact that the petitioner in the NRO case sought only to challenge the decree based on the nondiscrimination clause of the Pakistani Constitution and did not mention Article 62 makes the court’s invocation of it even more repugnant. Meanwhile, the decision’s lengthy recitations of religious literature and poetry, rather than reliance on legal precedent, further pulls the judiciary from its proper constitutional moorings. The second anti-Zardari effort occurred just a few days ago, when the court blocked a slate of the president’s judicial appointments. The court’s three-Justice panel justified the move by alleging the president failed to “consult” with Mr. Chaudhry. This constitutional excuse has never been used before. It is well-known in Islamabad that Mr. Zardari’s real sin was political, as he dared to appoint people unacceptable to the chief justice. Since consultation is not approval, Mr. Chaudhry’s position appears to be legally untenable. Yet Mr. Zardari, faced with demonstrations and media attacks, let Mr. Chaudhry choose a Supreme Court justice.
There is no doubt that the chief justice is more popular these days than the president, who has been weakened by the split in the political coalition which brought down Mr. Musharraf. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is now a leading opponent of the regime. There is a strong sense among the Pakistani elites that Justice Chaudhry has become Mr. Sharif’s key ally. The fact that Mr. Chaudhry was a victim of an improper effort by former President Musharraf to replace him with a more pliant judge makes his current posture all the more deplorable. His conduct has led some of his erstwhile allies to criticize him and speak of the danger to democracy posted by judicial meddling in politics. The stakes are stark indeed. If Mr. Chaudhry succeeds in ousting Mr. Zardari, Pakistan’s fledgling democracy would be undermined and the judiciary’s own legitimacy would be irrevocably damaged. Rule by unaccountable judges is no better than rule by the generals.
Pakistan’s Chief Justice Takes on its Political Class By RANIA ABOUZEID / ISLAMABAD Saturday, Mar. 27, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1975646,00.html
To his supporters, and there are many, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is a hero, a man of honor who stood up for an independent judiciary and defied the diktats of former President Pervez Musharraf — and who continues to hold the political establishment accountable. To his detractors, however, Chaudhry is an activist jurist with unbridled powers, a populist with grandiose political ambitions. In a country where politics can get very personal, the Chief Justice’s relationships with the pillars of civilian and military power, President Asif Ali Zardari and Army Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Kayani respectively, could be important in shaping Pakistan’s transition from de facto military rule to civilian democracy. And those relationships are likely to be tested in the tussle over a package of wide-ranging constitutional reforms that was due to be introduced to parliament on Friday, whose purpose is to reverse changes made by previous military rulers, trim the power of the presidency, and alter the procedure for Supreme Court appointments. The bill would take Supreme Court appointments out of the hands of the president, who now makes nominations after consulting with the chief justice, and place them before a government legal committee that also includes several justices. Unlike the present system, judges would have to be confirmed by a parliamentary vote. The proposed reforms have widened the rift between Chaudhry and the government that has grown since the Chief Justice last year struck down amnesty decrees by Musharraf that protected many senior figures in government — including Zardari himself once out of office — from prosecution on corruption charges. And some saw the Chief Justice’s hand in the eleventh-hour stalling of parliamentary debate on the package on Friday by opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who objected to proposals on the selection of judges. Sharif’s opposition, some senior politicians suggest, results from being pressured by Chaudhry, who is allegedly opposed to having his own power in the selection of judges curtailed. “The chief justice threatened [Sharif]. He said he’d open up all cases against him,” a senior leader of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party said on condition of anonymity. “He’s become an absolute dictator.”
On the contrary, says a legal expert at the Supreme Court and Chaudhry associate speaking on condition of anonymity, the conflict is caused by the “government [wanting] a chief justice and court which is compliant, not independent.” The standoff over how judges are selected could have far-reaching implications in a political order feeling its way towards democracy, with the different branches of government are “attempting to first stretch the bounds of their authority and second, to learn how to work with each other,” says Samina Ahmed, Pakistan director for the International Crisis Group, a global policy-research center. “The problem in Pakistan has [historically] been with the military’s intervention, transitions have been disrupted, and the judiciary in the past has supported every military intervention.” But as the two civilian branches of government tussle over their powers, neither appears to have clear backing from the military, whose preferences are often decisive. Still, some Pakistani media commentators suggest that the generals may be colluding with the judges to limit the power of government, already groaning under the weight of the president’s sagging popularity. They point to a stalled but soon-to-be-reopened Supreme Court case that accuses intelligence agencies of using the “war on terror” as a pretext to secretly detain thousands of citizens suspected of links to Baluchi separatists and other radical groups. The local Dawn newspaper reported last month that Supreme Court Justice Javed Iqbal said that the court “would not like to create the impression that it was out to destroy or tarnish the image of intelligence agencies” with regard to these cases. Chaudhry had in 2007 begun to investigate the issue of Pakistanis alleged to have disappeared into secret custody before he was deposed by Musharraf, and had ordered members of the security forces to produce several of the missing in court. Now, some media commentators are suggesting that Chaudhry is retreating from that fight. Chaudhry’s supporters deny the claim, and say that the court will not shy away from prosecuting any security officials who have broken the law. Whatever the outcome of the particular battles over constitutional powers and various court cases, what remains clear is that Justice Chaudhry, while holding an office that is ostensibly above politics, will remain in the thick of it.
CJ receives Holbrooke, calls on Zardari By Matiullah Jan Saturday, 06 Jun, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/cj-receives-holbrooke,-calls-on-zardari-669 Shame on CJ and Shame on Ansar Abbasi Published June 9, 2009 http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/shame-on-cj-and-shame-on-ansar-abbasi/
ISLAMABAD, June 5: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry met visiting US envoy Richard Holbrooke in the Supreme Court building on Friday. “The meeting was held at the request of the visiting US envoy Mr Holbrooke who came to meet the chief justice in his chambers,” said Dr Faqir Hussain, Registrar of the Supreme Court. He said that officials of the Foreign Office were present at the meeting. “Matters relating to judicial reforms as per national judicial policy and the whole judicial structure of Pakistan were discussed,” Dr Hussain said. The meeting comes at a time when Pakistani judiciary is seized with litigations that directly involved interests of the United States. A particular case of concern to the US is that of the missing persons in which intelligence agencies have been accused of either abducting people on suspicion of terrorism or handing them over to the United States. The case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who was reportedly abducted from Pakistan and is now in US detention, is also pending in courts. The Supreme Court spokesman denied that the issue of missing persons came up in the meeting. When contacted, the firebrand leader of lawyers’ movement and president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Ali Ahmed Kurd, declined to comment on the meeting.
PML-N spokesman Siddiquul Farooq who has a case pending in the apex court said: “It was a courtesy call by Mr Holbrooke and we believe in the person of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and we believe that no one can derail him from the judicious path.” Immediately after the meeting, the chief justice went to the presidency to attend the oath-taking ceremony of newly appointed Federal Shariat Court Chief Justice Agha Mohammad Rafique. There he had a one-to-one meeting with President Asif Zardari. It was for the first time since his restoration that the chief justice visited the presidency and met President Zardari. Justice Iftikhar, it may be mentioned, did not accept earlier invitations from President Zardari.
The last time the chief justice met Mr Zardari was at the Zardari House just before he moved to the presidency after becoming president. After becoming president, Mr Zardari publicly resisted the restoration of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, till the success of the long march by lawyers in March this year. One case pending before the Supreme Court and that directly affects President Zardari relates to the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) through which former President General Pervez Musharraf allowed the quashing of corruption charges against PPP leaders, including President Zardari. Under the new judicial policy reforms spearheaded by the chief justice, judges of the superior court are required to strictly follow the judicial code of conduct which, among other things, require them to stay away from public functions and not to assume executive offices to temporarily fill vacancies created by the president and governors going abroad. After his first restoration on July 20, 2007, Justice Chaudhry had stopped meeting the president or the prime minister and attending functions hosted by them.
Shame on CJ and Shame on Ansar Abbasi Published June 9, 2009 Articles http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/shame-on-cj-and-shame-on-ansar-abbasi/
We all heard about the recent meeting between CJ and Holbrooke that made no sense.
Well here is a meaningless @ss-covering being provided by none other than Ansar Abbasi:
Holbrooke-Iftikhar meeting approved by FO
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The meeting of US Special Envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke with Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was held following advice of the foreign office to the Supreme Court’s registrar.
‘Medal of Freedom’ or Slavery??
‘Medal of Freedom’ or Slavery??
While the meeting led to many tongues wagging, with some drawing their own conclusions and raising questions that in cases stretch out to the limits of conspiracy theories, it was neither a one-on-one meeting between the two nor anything bypassing the government’s foreign ministry.
Foreign Ministry sources as well as the registrar office of the Supreme Court confirmed to The News after the Supreme Court registrar received a request from the US embassy for Holbrooke’s desire to call on the chief justice of Pakistan, the matter was referred to the Foreign Ministry for advice.
The Foreign Ministry in its advice said the chief justice in his convenience could meet the visiting US special envoy and his delegation.The Foreign Ministry also deputed its two senior officials to be part of the Justice Iftikhar-Holbrooke meeting which, besides these foreign office officials, was also attended by Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain from the Pakistani side. Holbrooke was assisted by the US ambassador and members of his delegation.
Sources said Holbrooke told Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry that the purpose of his call was to pay a courtesy visit to the top judge of the country, who led a successful judicial movement in Pakistan.
Holbrooke, a foreign ministry source said, also disclosed to the chief justice US Secretary Hillary Clinton, who herself was a prominent lawyer, wanted him to meet Chief Justice Iftikhar during his visit to Pakistan. Holbrooke said he had come to the chief justice to pay his respect to the man, whom he had once watched on the television screen waving to the people after his release from house arrest last year.
Holbrooke said he has also been reading a lot about the efforts at ensuring speedy justice in Pakistan. During the meeting, Holbrooke also inquired about the judicial system of Pakistan, relationship between the judiciary and executive, the application of Islamic and common laws, etc.
The chief justice informed Holbrooke about the salient features of the recently-implemented National Judicial Policy and said the country’s judiciary is today independent. He also emphasised the need of separation of the judiciary from the executive and said the independent posture of the judiciary is a must.
Justice Iftikhar said the judiciary’s foremost effort is to end the backlog of cases and ensure quick justice for which the recently implemented National Judicial Policy is the first major step. The chief justice was also of the view that an independent judiciary is imperative for good governance, economic growth and development of the society.
Foreign Office sources said nothing regarding any particular case pending before the Supreme Court, including that of the missing persons or the NRO, came under discussion in the meeting.
That’s the best they have come up with so now you know there is more to the story.
Ansar
First of all Mr. Abbasi, you yourself state “the meeting led to many tongues wagging” (BTW: I think what you meant was “the meeting led to many jaws dropping”) so you you know it was for a valid reason — the meeting was totally inappropriate. So of course you cannot blame people for raising questions and it is dishonest of you to try and dismiss it as “conspiracy theories.”
Second, you state it was not a one-on-one meeting. That is not the issue. The issue is why was there a meeting at all? Of course you don’t answer it which shows you have no answer. Someone said “cj is not pakistan ambassador or foreign minister. he is a judge and it does not become him to discuss a sub-judice matter with a foreigner that too somebody he believes is a party to the case,” and I agree. Of course the writer is referring to earlier reports that the missing persons case was on the table. In fact it was the Registrar of the Supreme Court himself who stated:
‘Matters relating to judicial reforms as per national judicial policy and the whole judicial structure of Pakistan were discussed‘
(Remember this is a statement by the same Registrar — which we are now supposed to ignore — who “approved” this meeting — an excuse we are supposed to accept. (Does any one know if it is the the Registrar who holds so much sway as to who the CJ is supposed to meet and who to ignore??? I don’t think so!!!)
So stating now that no such thing happened is A BOLD-FACED LIE and Ansar is being a party to spreading this lie.; I also agree with Teeth Maestro when he states: “for matters of dignity and norms the Chief Justice should not have met a political official of the US Government, which has been responsible for kidnappings and ‘externments’ from Pakistan to say the least.”
An overactive judiciary might undermine a fragile democracy – Pakistan’s populist judges Feb 10th 2011 | ISLAMABAD | from PRINT EDITION http://www.economist.com/node/18114729?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Far%2Fcourtingtrouble
PAKISTAN’S chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry (pictured above), is riding high. At a time when most of the country’s political leaders are despised as venal, lazy or inept, its senior jurist is held in esteem. People tell pollsters they trust him more than anyone. They cheer his efforts to take on the corrupt and hapless president, Asif Ali Zardari. Yet Mr Chaudhry may be crossing a line from activist judge to political usurper.
His judges pass up no chance to swipe at the government. Mr Chaudhry spent months trying to get Swiss officials to reopen a corruption case that could have toppled Mr Zardari (in Pakistan, criminal proceedings against a sitting president are prohibited). After that failed, the courts took up a thin-looking case in which the president is accused of unconstitutionally holding an office for profit. That looks vindictive: the office in question is his post as head of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party.
The courts quickly adopt populist causes, especially those that squeeze Mr Zardari. After an American diplomat shot dead two men in the street in Lahore last month, the mother of one victim appealed for justice on television, saying that she would trust only Mr Chaudhry to help. The High Court in Lahore promptly ordered that the diplomat, who had been arrested, must not be allowed out of the country—even if the government were to rule that he had immunity. In this case, as in many others, the judges have shown themselves to be able self-publicists. Their stance has won approving coverage.
And on the country’s illiberal but widely popular blasphemy law, the Lahore High Court intervened to forbid the president from issuing an early pardon to anyone convicted by lower courts. Before the murder last month of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab and critic of the blasphemy law, Mr Zardari had told him he was planning such a pardon. The courts seem set on boxing him in.
Perhaps the most striking evidence of judicial activism is in economic policy. In a speech in India on February 6th Mr Chaudhry lashed out at the IMF and other international bodies for imposing what he said were hypocritical policies on poor countries. That seemed intended to play well at home, just as the IMF and the government are trying to increase the tax take (only 2% of Pakistanis pay tax) and cut subsidies—unpalatable but needed medicine.
Judicial figures have meddled egregiously in economic affairs before. The courts have tried to fix the price of staple commodities such as petrol and sugar, to public cheers. But in 2009 attempts predictably missed their mark as producers hoarded stocks and the black-market price soared. It is not the court’s job, says Hasan Askari Rizvi, a commentator, to enter the executive’s domain.
The judiciary’s various efforts suggest that Mr Chaudhry is as keen as any politician to curry public favour. He likes to talk up his part in pushing out the old military regime of General Pervez Musharraf, now in exile in London. (This week the general was named as an accused by investigators looking into the 2007 murder of Benazir Bhutto.) Yet for all the judge’s talk of his “commitment to the core values of democracy”, he first accepted his post from General Musharraf in 2005, some six years after democracy was overthrown.
Adaptability is matched by appreciably greater clout. In January the 19th amendment to the constitution was signed into law, giving judges a freer hand in making judicial appointments, at the expense of politicians. An independent judiciary is welcome, says Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group, yet it is striking how hard the judges fought to reject any elected oversight. Now Mr Chaudhry is out to settle scores with nine senior judges accused of contempt of court for accepting jobs late in Mr Musharraf’s rule.
On one interpretation, all this may add up to nothing too sinister. A degree of judicial activism is needed if Mr Zardari’s government is not to enjoy an easy ride. The opposition pulls its punches, despite the government’s wretched failure in coping with huge floods last year, and its lack of progress in tackling widespread graft, reviving the economy or putting down extremist violence. Nawaz Sharif, the main opposition leader, seems not to want to bring down a civilian government before elections are due. Perhaps he does not want to rule yet, given Pakistan’s mess. Or perhaps he fears giving the army an excuse to meddle openly in politics yet again.
Another, and more troubling, interpretation is also plausible. Maybe, some observers say, the judges are getting too big for their wigs precisely because they have army support. Mr Chaudhry, witting or not, may be helping to create the conditions in which the men in uniform step in again one day. The example Pakistanis cite in private is Bangladesh’s stealthy coup in January 2007. At that time the army, fronted by technocrats, pushed aside corrupt party politicians and scrapped elections, with the tacit support of donors.
Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani author, notes “extraordinary co-operation” between the judges and the army in recent years in Pakistan. He points out how rarely judges pursue cases of human-rights violations by soldiers, whereas cases that hurt the government fly into the courts. The army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, a more introverted figure than his predecessor, does not seem to want to take power right now. But a further collapse of order in Pakistan, which is increasingly described as a failing state, might encourage the soldiers to act. Mr Chaudhry should take care that he does not become their fall guy.
its like a judicial martial law, no one is dare to ask any question.everyone is so scared of suprem court.they created so much fear in people.some body needs to ask mr ramday about his morality when teachs morality to people in court.They threaten people of jail on small matters in court and no one is dare to say ok send me to jail .
TODAY IN COURT CHIEF JUSTICE STARTED GIVING VERY HARSH REMARKS AGAINST GOVT, ITS A TACTIC TO BRING GOVT UNDER- PRESSURE SO THEY WILL NOT OPPOSE RAMDAY’S APOINTMENT.HE DID SAME THING LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS GIVING RAMDAY EXTENSION.
Will Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry quash case the against Sherry Rehman and earn displeasure of his support base, the jihadi mullah, right wing media and military establishment? I seriously doubt that! This is the fate of all those who want to support the establishment’s agenda of jihadism but oppose its proxy, the mullah. Sherry is not the first or last to be victim of her own contradictions. But again, it is a decision by ‘the independent judiciary’ and ‘must be respected’. Criticism on court decisions will undermine the ‘independence of judiciary’ – were not we being told the same by Aitzaz Ahsan, Sherry Rehman and their FCS followers when it was President Zardari and other leadership of PPP being victimised by the same judiciary?
Justice re-extended
In an unprecedented development, a full court meeting of the Supreme Court (SC) has unanimously agreed to a resolution looking to extend as ad hoc judges for one more year Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday and Justice Rehmat Hussain Jaffery. For Justice Ramday this will be an almost unheard of second extension just as his retirement, once again, looms around the corner. The fact that there is an almost choked backlog of cases pending in the SC is the reported reason behind this move to take advantage of the many years of experience that come with veterans such as Justice Ramday and Justice Jaffery.
This move, however, does not come without its detractors. Asma Jahangir, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), has voiced her reservations by claiming that such ad hoc appointments “stalemate” the judicial process on fresh appointments and can create a negative impression. Even Hamid Khan, a senior lawyer, has expressed opposition to the proposal.
The SC is currently hearing a case pertaining to the widely reported Hajj scam where allegations are even reaching some of our political heavyweights. In regards to the case, the SC, only a few weeks back, admonished the police and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for re-appointing retired senior officials in lucrative posts on contract. This, the SC claimed, blocked fresh appointments and disrupted due procedural ethics. The chief justice (CJ) himself said that favouritism should be brought to an end. Now, while constitutional provisions allow ad hoc judicial appointments, they cannot serve to dispel notions of partisanship and the very favouritism that the CJ is against. The principled stand taken by the CJ in the FIA’s reappointments was a positive example to set. Now, while the SC almost always takes responsible action and pays full heed to professional ethics, it must be wondered why it may not be following the same principles for itself that it lays down for other institutions.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20112\16\story_16-2-2011_pg3_1
Foot in Mouth Award 2010: Justice Ad-hoc Khalil ul Rehman Ramday Thursday, October 14, 2010 http://green-goats-hide.blogspot.com/2010/10/foot-in-mouth-award-2010-justice-ad-hoc_14.html
The Foot in Mouth award is awarded each year by the Plain English Campaign for a baffling comment in English language by a prominent figure. The comment can be inappropriate for being queer in grammar or content or both. The English proverb after which the award is named, ‘foot in the mouth’, simply means a distasteful or foul oration. The proverb I believe is self explanatory. It further goes without saying that if similar award was to be given in Pakistan, despite tough competition from Chief Justice Lahore High Court Khwaja Sharif, the outright winner would be Justice Khalil ul Rehman Ramday. While all of his golden quotes can fill volumes, some select few and their apparent fallacy or foolishness have been reproduced here to impress his exemplary personality upon the readers.
Not few days ago,
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said in his remarks, ” the courts had been left with no task but to pocket insults.” October 2010
So sir, you do finally realise your public standing? Had you paid a bit more attention to serving the people of Pakistan than focusing on lynching their elected representatives day and night, you would be receiving some accolades, but since you are not doing so, enjoying your well deserved share of insults.
He also observed,
“CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was held by hair and dragged, but we did not take any action. Whenever such an incident takes place, a strategy is adopted with wisdom. We did not take revenge on anyone for what happened with us after March 9, 2007,” October 2010
Are you suggesting that in following the course of law you did me or the people of Pakistan a favor? The fact that why the Chief Justice of Pakistan did not get a FIR registered is another matter.
Another member of the bench, Justice Ramday said that wherever judges try to raise their heads, they are immediately showered with hammers. September 28, 2010.
When did they raise their heads? Can you quote one incident other than 9th March? Also, may I suggest that you refrain from basking in CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry’s glory, using it to put yourself on a pedestal.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said: “We judges cannot sit as silent onlookers if someone is committing suicide before us.” 30 September, 2010
What?! Didn’t you guys do exactly that during the eight year Mush rule? Yes, before your sudden awakening! When all the banks, flour, sugar and rice mills, stocks in power plants, PTCL, KESC and many other institutions had been given away in shady privatisation deals and stock market had crashed twice.
These two quotes both part of the 18th amendment case proceedings, in response to different arguments pertaining to the amendment with respect to appointment of judges.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday remarked that the judiciary was separated and detached from the executive, but now the latter’s role was being enhanced while in the UK, the executive’s role was minimised in appointments.
“Judge is appointed by the Senate in US. But here in Pakistan ground realities will have to be looked into,” Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday remarked.
So sir, do you think people of Pakistan are stupid? We are not ignorant fools, heads-I-win, tails-you-lose is not going work. Be ethical and pick a side.
Justice Ramday cited in a judgment that Article 248 came up for interpretation in Ch Zahur Ilahi’s case (PLD 1975 SC 383), which stated the scope and the operational area of the said provision as “…the immunity provisions must, in accordance with the accepted principles of interpretation, be construed strictly and unless persons claiming the immunity comes strictly within the terms of the provisions granting the immunity, the immunity cannot be extended. The immunity is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that no one is above the law.”
The matter was further explained thus: “Hence, since neither the Constitution nor any law can possibly authorise him to commit a criminal act or do anything which is contrary to law, the immunity cannot extend to illegal or unconstitutional acts.”
Okay, so the immunity extends only when you convict people for actions permissible under law, got it!
On the formation of a judicial commission Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said, during a hearing
‘Thank God that our ministers and bureaucrats are honest and angels. The sheer fault lies only with the judges; hence, they must be set right.’
No sir they aren’t but the bureaucracy is not (directly) governed by the Constitution, hence their appointment was not covered in the eighteenth amendment. Seems you missed out on some crucial lessons at law school. As for the ministers, why do you question their eligibility, did you yourself not say in Court that it was up to nation to decide to whom they wanted to see as judge or otherwise. So why do you not honour their decision when it is not in your favour.
At a different date he further remarked,
The judiciary had rendered sacrifices, judges faced detention and hunger along with their children and had to let go numerous competent brother judges by way of the July 31 verdict (for taking oath under the PCO) only to save the democratic system. But, he said, the hands of the same judiciary were being tied.
Honourable sir, you with your fellow lordships suffered four months of detention in your house with your families. This was done at the hands of a dictator whom you strengthened and served unconditionally for eight years. For such support you deserve a minimum of life imprisonment. Moreover, while you walked hand in hand with the dictator, hundreds of politicians and political workers were tortured until they changed loyalties.
Should your logic be accepted why don’t you give the political leadership of the country a free pass they have earned as per your logic? Each one of them has sacrificed more than the entire judiciary put together.
But above all his quote for which he truly deserves an award is his outright admission in the Court, ten days before the 3rd November emergency, while Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan was pleading the case of Justice Retired Wajihuddin.
“I am not ashamed if I had taken the oath under the PCO,” Justice Ramday observed. “We have made our country, its institutions and the Constitution a matter of laughing stock in the world.” He said that whatever ‘burble and verbal jugglery’ might be behind the changes made since 1977 in the Constitution, the country had been ruled under the Constitution.“But we sit here and waste days and weeks trying to understand (interpreting things).”
Sir, this was at the peak of the historic lawyers movement. You had the audacity to not only defend your oath under the PCO but also question why should you be ashamed. One is forced to wonder that had you been offered an oath by Musharraf again, would you have stood by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry?
While, his lack of shame on committing treason deserves recognition, it is for his persistent shamelessness two years on that we award him Foot in Mouth.
Justice Ramday recalled that, “all the validations accorded by the judiciary were temporary in nature, but asked why the one who committed treason by abrogating the Constitution and the institution (parliament) which indemnified such actions had not been touched, but the judiciary was being singled out unnecessarily.”
“All the subsequent abrogation and martial laws were not only accepted by the people but also given permanency by political leaders,” the judge regretted.
He said the 8th Amendment was one such example when the 1985 parliament indemnified all extra-constitutional actions taken by Gen Ziaul Haq.
“Why did the parliamentarians not stand up by refusing to validate Ziaul Haq’s martial law if the judiciary had given a wrong decision in the Nusrat Bhutto case?” Justice Ramday asked. He also cited the Zafar Ali Shah case in which the judiciary had given three years’ time to Gen Pervez Musharraf to hold elections.
Mr Ramday in his desperation has forgotten that the eighth amendment ratification by the sham parliament was challenged by Benazir Bhutto in Courts as it was un-Constitutional for being even the house so elected was unicameral in nature. He has also forgotten the non-partisan elections of Zia, the low voter turnout and the suppression of people by the dictator. Both the eighth amendment and the seventeenth amendments were carried out by parliaments which were a result of heavily rigged elections, yet you would go to any length to deny any blame on your part.
For all the above comments and your lack of shame in putting such thoughts into words, you deserve Pakistan’s first Foot in Mouth Award. Congratulations!!
Judges VS Lawyers – Part – 1 (Dunya TV 17th Feb 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moWBPKH8kdw
Judges VS Lawyers – Part – 2 (Dunya TV 17th Feb 2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3fG_VmLXWk
Judges VS Lawyers – Part – 3 (Dunya TV 17th Feb 2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkgJzX3uATc
The issue of extension in service or reappointment of officers after retirement has become highly controversial since the verdict of the SC on the appointment of retired officials on contract basis in the civil bureaucracy. However, the SC itself is not seen as applying the same principle within its own institution. The number of additional judges recommended by the JC for the LHC has raised many an eyebrow. On the other hand, the proposal to give an extension to two retired judges — Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Justice Rehmat Hussain Jaffery — in the SC on an ad hoc basis has been criticised by the Pakistan Bar Council, the Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jahangir, and other lawyers’ forums. They have demanded an end to the culture of ad hocism. If there is a need, the number of permanent seats of judges could be increased instead of hiring retired judges. How can the judiciary expect other institutions to follow a principle it is not ready to accept for itself?
ججوں کو نوٹس، وکلاء کا ردعمل
پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے غیر فعال جج جسٹس جہانزیب کی طرف سپریم کورٹ کے ججوں کو ہتک عدالت کے نوٹس جاری اور سپریم کورٹ کے جج جسٹس خلیل الرحمن رمدے کی مدت ملازمت میں توسیع پر وکلاء رہنما کا ردعمل۔
کلِک عدلیہ پر سوالیہ نشان لگ رہا ہے: عاصمہ جہانگیر
کلِک عدلیہ کے فیصلے سمجھ سے بالا تر: جسٹس ریٹائرڈ طارق محمود
کلِک ججوں کو نوٹس، حکومت کی سازش: حامد خان
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2011/02/110218_lawyers_reaction_ra.shtml
Are Court Reporters Impartial – Part – 1 (Apna Gareban Matiullah Jan DAWNNEWS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_FooDuR7xs
Are Court Reporters Impartial – Part – 2 (Apna Gareban Matiullah Jan DAWNNEWS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20gCIcVGVUg
Are Court Reporters Impartial – Part – 3 (Apna Gareban Matiullah Jan DAWNNEWS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q50L87plP-I
Are Court Reporters Impartial – Part – 4 (Apna Gareban Matiullah Jan DAWNNEWS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxpA3ATjgQ
Are Court Reporters Impartial – Part – 5 (Apna Gareban Matiullah Jan DAWNNEWS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GgE7XQR-xI
Chief Justice Pakistan’s son Dr Arsalan with Kamran Khan on GEO TV (2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8P-VmGvEuc
Wonderful article! We are linking to this great post on our website.
Keep up the good writing.
Feel free to visit my blog post; 30th birthday ideas [Tiffany]
Vеry goo website you havfe ɦere but I wass curious if you knew of aany forums thaat cover
tҺe sɑme topics discussed hегe? I’d reаlly love to bе
a part of community whегe I cаn get advice from оther
experienced people tɦat share the sake intereѕt. Ιf you hɑve any
recommendations, pleaѕe let me know. Tɦanks!
Haave a lߋok at my webpage: post Panda Keyword research
Hellߋ, yes this piece of writing is really nice andd
I have learned lot of tҺings fгom it on the topikc of blogging.
tɦanks.
Feel free tߋ visit mʏ web-site :: cost of keyword research
I’m morе than happy to uncover tҺis website. I want too
to thank үou foг ʏour time duе to thіs wonderful read!!
Ӏ definitely loved very bit օf iit and i also
have үοu saved aѕ a favorite to check out new thіngs in your site.
mү website … fastest keyword research tool
Ԍreat article. Ι am dealing wіth many օf thse issues аs well..
Нere is my site – Keyword Research For Organic Search
Hey tҺere І am so happy I found yoսr webpage, I reallʏ foսnd ƴou bƴ error, whilee
I was browsing ߋn Aool fοr sߋmething else, Αnyways ӏ am ɦere noա and woսld jսst
like to sаy many thаnks for a tremendous post and a all rojnd
thrilling blog (Ӏ ɑlso love the theme/design), Ι don’t
have time to browse it аll at tҺe minute but I have saved it and alѕо adɗed іn yοur RSS feeds, ѕo when I have time I wіll bе bacƙ to read а grеat deal more, Рlease ԁo keеp up thhe fantastic job.
Ӎy page :: Organic Keyword Research
Нi, i tɦink tҺat i noticed yߋu visited my weblog thus i got
heгe to go bacκ thе favor?.I am trying to in finding things to enhance my site!ӏ assume itѕ gooԁ enougҺ tо use a
few oof your concepts!!
my blog post; Keyword Research Discovery
My spouse and I absolutely love ʏour blog and find thе majority of
youг post’s to be eхactly ԝhat I’m lоoking fοr.
can you offer guest writers tօ write content aѵailable for yoս?
I wouldn’t mind publishing ɑ posxt oг elaborating on a number of thе subjects ƴߋu write concerning here.
Agaіn, awesome web log!
Alsoo visit mү web pаge keyword questions Keyword research tool
Ԍreetings fгom Loss angeles! I’m bored tο tears at work sߋ I decided to browse your site
on mʏ iphone duгing lujch break. Ι love the info ʏou provide
here and cɑn’t wait to tɑke a loοk whеn І get home.
І’m surprised аt how quick your blog loaded оn my mobile
.. I’m not evesn usіng WIFI, ϳust 3G .. Αnyways, fantastic site!
Αlso visit mʏ web page :: http://salontj.com/xe/?document_srl=443600
Hi, I woսld liҡe to subscribe forr tɦіs web site to ǥet newest updates, sso wheгe can i doo it ρlease ɦelp
out.
Feel free tо visit mmy blog post regional keyword research
I’m now not cеrtain ѡhere ʏou’re getting үouг info,
howevеr ցreat topic. Ι must spend sօme time finding out morе or
understanding morе. Thankѕ fоr excellent info ӏ uѕed tօ be searching for this infoгmation fօr my
mission.
Alsoo visit mʏ website: keyword research mac os X
I used to bee recommended thіs web site ѵia mү cousin. І’m now not sսre whether this publish іs written by means of him as no one
else recognize such specific аpproximately mу proЬlem.
Yoս are wonderful! Thank yοu!
Also visit mу page; seo Keyword Research checklist
I juѕt coսld not gο ɑway your web site prior to suggesting tҺat I
rеally loved the standard іnformation a person supply to ƴoսr
visitors? Is gonna bе again regularly to inspect
neԝ posts
Lоoқ at mƴ webpage … keyword research broad exact phrase
Ңi, I think yoսr websitee mіght Ƅe haνing browser compatibility issues.
Ԝhen I look at your blog site in Chrome, iit loօks fine bbut ԝhen оpening in Internet
Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wantеd to gіve
уou a quick heads up! Other then thɑt, superb blog!
mү homepage; keyword research for dummies
ӏ eѵery time emailed tҺis blog post pqge tο all my friends, sіnce іf like
tο read іt afterward mʏ contacts ԝill tօo.
my web pаge :: Keyword Research
It’s ցoing to be finish ߋff mine day, ɦowever before finish І am
reading thіs fantastic paragraph tо improve mmy
experience.
Нere іs my blog Btcinvfx.Com
Thanks fоr ѕome otɦer fantastic post. Wheгe else maƴ just anyone get thаt ype of information in such an ideal methhod օf writing?
I’ve a presentation neҳt week, and ӏ аm on tɦe search for sսch іnformation.
Feel free tto surf tߋ my web site; Keyword research myths
Hi mates, hoԝ iis everything, and what youu wwould lіke to sаy concerning this article, in my
view itѕ genuinely amazing in favor οf mе.
My web-site: keyword research by state
Heey theгe! Do you know if thgey maҟe any plugins tߋ assist ѡith
SEO? I’m trying to get my blog to rank fߋr ѕome targeted keywords but I’m not sеeing very good gains.
If youu қnow oof any please share. Kudos!
Stopp bу my weblog Top 10 Keyword Research Software
Wow, thіs article іs nice, my yoսnger sister is analyzing suuch things, so Ӏ аm goіng tto let know her.
Here is mƴ blog post Proper keyword research
I likе it whеn individuals get togetther аnd share opinions.
Ԍreat site, continue tɦe goօd woгk!
my site how To do keyword research For amazon Products
I wass ɑble to find goօd advice fгom your content.
My blog … Keyword Researcher Review
Hello my family membеr! I աish to say that this article is amazing, nice written aand imclude ɑlmost ɑll impߋrtant infos.
I’d like to peer extra posts lіke thіs .
ңere iѕ my web blg – you compare car insurance
Hi, Neeat post. Тherе’s аn issue togethr ԝith youг webb site in web explorer, mіght test tɦis?
IE still іs the marketplace chief ɑnd a huge component
of other people ԝill omit your fantastic writing due to thіs problеm.
Μy web blog :: Keyword Research Is Key To Online Success
You ϲould cеrtainly ѕee yߋur enthusiasm ѡithin tҺe wߋrk уou write.
Τhе sector hopes forr even morе passionate writers sujch аs you who are not
afraid to say hօw tɦey belieѵe. At all times go after your heart.
Hеre is myy weblog easy keyword research
Howdy, i read your blog fгom time tto time аnd і owwn a similɑr one and i
was just wondering if yoս geet a lot of spam feedback? Ӏf so
how do you reduce іt, any plugin օr anytҺing you can advise?
I get so mucɦ lately іt’s driving me crazy ѕo any assistanhe iѕ vеry much appreciated.
Feel fre to visit mƴ blpg – Keyword Research Video Tutorial
I tɦink that еverything posted made a great deazl օf sense.
But, thіnk on thiѕ, suppose you were to
wrikte a awesome headline? I ain’t ѕaying your іnformation isn’t good., but
what іf you added ɑ title to mahbe grab people’s attention? І mean Fսll Court Reference recommendss
Khalil Ramday ffor оne more yea – Azad Adliyha Zindabad is kinda boring.
Υou oսght tօ glance at Yahoo’s front page аnd note how theƴ create post headlkines tօ
grab viewers tо click. You miight try adding a video or ɑ гelated pic orr
tѡo to ǥet readers excited аbout everything’ve written. In my opinion, itt miyht mаke yߋur blog ɑ lіttle bit mߋre
interesting.
Μy homepage :: How To Do Keyword Research With Google Keyword Tool
ңello to everƴ , aѕ I am actսally keen оf reading this webpage’s post tо bе updated regularly.
It carries nice data.
Мy blog post :: step by step Keyword Research Method 100k
I am trսly plleased to read tҺis web site possts ѡhich includes lots ߋf սseful factѕ, tɦanks
for providing such statistics.
Мy ƿage – Keyword research for clients
Α motivating discussion iis worth comment. I thіnk that you need tto wrte mοrе
abоut thiѕ topic, іt mɑy noot bе a taboo subuect ƅut typically people don’t speak аbout uch subjects.
Тo tthe next! Bеst wishes!!
ʟook into my web site :: google trends Keyword research
Yеs! Finally ѕomeone writes ɑbout website keyword гesearch tools.
Review mу pagе – Monteklearningsolutions.Com
Remarkable tɦings ɦere. I’m vedry happy tօ peer youг article.
Tank ʏou sο much and I’m loοking ahead to cntact ƴou.
Wіll yօu pleaѕе drop me ɑ mail?
Feel fre tօ visit mу homepage: thecityinsightlist.com
I’m trսly enjoying the design annd layout
of ʏour blog. It’s a verʏ easy on the eyes whiсh mɑkes it much mօre pleasant fօr mee to сome Һere and visit
more often. Did yoս hire out ɑ developer tօ create үouг theme?
Grеat work!
Taƙe a looκ at my weblog – what is Keyword research and analysis
Ҭhis iѕ rеally intereѕting, Yօu ɑre a vеry skilled
blogger. Ӏ’ve joined yߋur ffeed and loοk forward to seeking more οf ʏߋur wonderful post.
Αlso, I’ve shared уߋur website іn my social networks!
Feel free tօ surf tօ my web-site – accurate keyword research
Whеn ѕomeone writes an paragraph hе/she maintains thhe thoսght of a user іn his/her mind that how a user сan understand it.
Thսs that’s why thiѕ paragraph іs greаt. Thanks!
Review my weblog keyword research for small businesses
bookmarked!!, І love yοur website!
Alѕo visit my web site: global keyword research
Do you haѵе a spwm issue oon thіs website; I alszo am а blogger, ɑnd I was
wanting to know youг situation; mɑny of սs havе created ѕome nice practices аnd we are looking tto trafe
solutions witҺ other folks, be ѕure tо shoot me аn email іf interested.
My web page … presenting keyword Research
Tɦis is а grеat tip eѕpecially to tɦose fresh to tҺе blogosphere.
Shortt ƅut very precise іnformation… TҺank you foor sharing
tɦis one. A must read post!
Also visit mƴ website quick guide to keyword research