October 17, 2002	Thursday	Sha'aban 10, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Oct 16: The increase in the retirement age of the judges of Supreme Court and high courts is being criticized by the bar leaders, saying that the amendment in the constitution by the government on Oct 9 was an act of deception.

Mohammad Akram Sheikh, an active bar leader, former president of SCBA, and a sitting member of the PBC said: “There was no moral justification for such an amendment on the election eve. This could tantamount to preempting the right of parliament to legislate on such a vital issue.”

The president had made amendments in the Legal Framework Order on Oct 9, increasing the retirement age of judges of Supreme Court to 68, and high court to 65. It also raised the minimum age appointment as a judge of high court from 40 to 45.

All the sitting judges of the high court and Supreme Court would benefit from the government’s generosity.

All those judges of Supreme Court, who were members of the bench which validated the military takeover, after retirement from the Supreme Court, have got lucrative appointments, sans Justice Bashir Jehangiri.

The increase in the retiring age would benefit all judges, including the sitting chief justice who otherwise would have retired in April next year. Now he would get three more years.

Shaikh said the midnight amendment to constitution was devoid of legitimacy. In 1996, and 1997, he said, the SC Bar had demanded that the judges’ age be extended through a well-debated constitutional amendment to 68, which was accepted by the prime minister before the international conference on March 8, 1997.

The demand for the extension of the retirement age had been looming large since 1992 and was almost at the verge of passage when Justice Mohammad Afzal Zullah, the then CJ, insisted that the extension be given to judges on his recommendation.

Shaikh said that there should have been some uniformity in the retirement age of SC and HC judges.

He said that it’s time the judiciary was subjected to accountability as provided in Article 209 so that its prestige and independence could survive.

Chaudhry Mohammad Ikram, President of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Bar Association, said that a good number of laws were passed in the first week of October, including the midnight extension of retirement age of SC and HC judges.

Chaudhry Ikram said that Pakistan’s judiciary, which validated the military takeover, compromised its independence.

He said the government, not only removed independent judges, but also appointed those of its choice. He said the increase in the retirement age would add to the plight of the people who were not getting justice.

He said the perception that the government and judiciary were in league, was not good for the institution.

Chaudhry Akram said the Supreme Judicial Council, had failed and, in fact, had become a judges’ club who are protective of them.