ISLAMABAD, April 19: A citizen on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking enhancement in retiring age of judges of the superior courts by three years. Filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, Awami Himayat Tehrik Party chairman Maulvi Iqbal Haider has sought restoration of three-year extension in the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court from 65 years to 68 and of the high court judges from 62 years to 65.

The retirement age of the judges was enhanced from 65 years to 68 and 62 to 65 for the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts, respectively, by amending Articles 179 and 195 of the Constitution when the Legal Framework Order (LFO) 2002 was promulgated by President Gen Pervez Musharraf as the chief executive of the country. But, the same was later withdrawn when the 17th constitutional amendment was adopted by parliament.

The petitioner has prayed to club his petition with that of Habib Wahabul Khairi of Al-Jihad Trust, which a five-member larger bench had recently accepted while dismissing the six petitions against the 17th constitutional amendment and the dual office of President Gen Pervez Musharraf.

The bench had announced separate hearing of Mr Khairi’s petition concerning retirement age of judges.

In his petition, Mr Haider prayed before the Supreme Court to declare the 17th amendment, to the extent of reducing the retiring age of judges, as a “bona fide mistake” causing harm to the independence of judiciary as it took away fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan.

The court should also declare, he pleaded, that the amendment to the affect of reducing the retirement age was against the preamble of the Constitution enshrined in Article 2A (objective resolution to form part of the Constitution), Article 8 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void) of the Constitution and Article 70 (introduction and passing of bill).

The apex court should also hold, he prayed, that the retiring age of the judges be restored in its original position, as it was on the day when the Constitution was revived through November, 2002 CE Order/Notification.

He pleaded that reduction to judges retirement age amounted to undermining the independence of the judiciary and that the parliamentarians had no power to amend the Constitution against the spirit of the Federal Legislative List protected under Article 70 of the Constitution.

He recalled that minimum age for appointment as judge of the high court was also enhanced from 40 to 45 when the three-year extension in maximum age was granted to judges. But with the 17th amendment the upper age relaxation was withdrawn but the minimum age still remains 45 which is a “bona fide mistake” in the amendment.