October 18, 2002	Friday	Sha'aban 11, 1423

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

ISLAMABAD, Oct 17: The Supreme Court Bar Association is of the considered view that no amendment should be made to the Constitution relating to the retirement age of the judges of the superior courts, as it was the prerogative of the parliament, and not of the present regime to do so, SCBA Secretary said on Thursday.

Sahibzada Anwar Hameed, Secretary Supreme Court Bar Association, said that making amendment to the Constitution was the domain of the parliament and the purported amendments by the present regime, enhancing the retirement age of the judges of the SC and high courts by three years, was unconstitutional.

Addressing a press conference in Islamabad, the SCBA secretary said it was a consistent stand of the Supreme Court Bar Association that retirement age of the judges of the superior courts was a settled matter and there could be no justification whatsoever for disturbing the same.

Any change in the retirement age of the superior court judges was against the sentiments of the lawyers fraternity, he said.

He said the purported amendments to the Constitution by the present regime would be strongly opposed by the Bar and the Executive Committee of the SCBA would soon meet to consider it.

The SCBA office-bearer said it was also a demand of the lawyers fraternity that no retired judge of the high court be appointed on any judicial post.

He said the amendment to the Constitution on Oct 9, was unconstitutional as the military government had no power to do this, as it would affect the independence of the judiciary.

The SCBA secretary said it was the view of the SCBA that the Supreme Court had no legislative power and it could not extend the same to any other individual or body.

Besides, the SC in Zafar Ali Shah case had only allowed the use of legislative powers only to the extent of ensuring “ordinary, orderly running of the government.”

He said that SCBA would not challenge the amendment on any judicial forum, as it held the view that the judiciary was not independent and agitating matter before it was useless.

He said the Bar was expecting that the judiciary would take a suo motu notice of the amendment as it was hurting its reputation.

He said it would enhance the stature of the judiciary if it refused to accept the extension in the retirement age.