August 5, 2002	Monday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 25,1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

ISLAMABAD, Aug 4: The government has decided to drop the proposal for the reconstitution of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with all the chief justices of the high courts as its members, but would stick to the proposal allowing suo motu powers to the council to initiate proceedings against any judge, Dawn learnt from judicial sources.

The government in its second constitutional package had proposed that article 209 of the Constitution dealing with the SJC be amended to provide that instead of the two most senior chief justices of high courts the chief justices of all high courts be members of the council.

The proposal, however, was not well received by the judiciary at highest level, arguing that if the proposed amendment in article 209 was carried the balance of the SJC will tilt in favour of the high court and the apex court would be outnumbered.

The SJC’s existing Constitution is that it is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two senior most judges of the Supreme Court and also two senior most chief justices of high courts as its members.

The proposal for empowering the SJC, to inquire into any matter relating to corruption or incapacity of a judge to perform his functions properly, at its own accord, were welcomed by all the relevant quarters, including the judiciary, the source said.

The third proposal that the SJC’s recommendations be binding for action by the president was also received well.

The SJC has been part of every Constitution of Pakistan, but only four cases have been referred to it in the last 55 years. These are of Justice Shaukat Ali of Lahore High Court, Justice Ikhlaq of LHC, Justice Fazale Ghani and Justice Safdar Shah of the Supreme Court.

Those who have seen the judiciary closely, are of the view that the exception of Justice Shaukat Ali, who was accused of holding two offices of profit, all the remaining cases were clearly motivated and the purpose was not to take to clean the institution of the sullen faces but to target the uncompromising judges which were not liked by those on the helm of affairs.

The Supreme Court, in its number of judgments, held that the president “alone,” on the advice of prime minister or the cabinet, could refer a case of a judge to the Supreme Judicial Council for holding an inquiry against him.

The Supreme Court, repeatedly turned down the requests to interpret article 209, which says that the president on information received from the “Supreme Judicial Council or from any other source,” shall direct the SJC to inquire into the matter.