ISLAMABAD, May 5: Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that any decision regarding extension in the retirement age of judges of the superior court would be controversial and harm the cause of justice and independence of judiciary. In his comments filed before the Supreme Court on a petition of Awami Himayat Tehrik Party chairman Maulvi Iqbal Haider, the attorney-general said the petition seeking enhancement in the retirement age by three years was not maintainable for not being a matter of public importance.

A similar petition of the Watan Party had already been rejected by the apex court on the grounds that it did not relate to a matter of public importance concerning fundamental rights, the attorney-general added. The judicial branch could not be reformed independently of the body politic because it was an organic part of that body politic, he said and added that in the absence of any broad-based support, even well-intentioned reform efforts could damage the hard-earned prestige of the superior judiciary.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear on Monday the petition of Maulvi Iqbal Haider along with the petition of Habib Wahabul Khairi, the chief of Al-Jihad Trust, seeking enhancement of the retirement age of judges of the superior courts by three years.

Mr Haider has sought restoration of the three-year extension in the retirement age of the judges of the Supreme Court from 65 years to 68 and of the four high courts from 62 years to 65.

The judiciary would be entering the realm of politics by examining the issue, the attorney-general said, adding that it would also run into a serious public opposition.

He said the line of arguments sought to be advanced by the petitioner (Mr Iqbal Haider) was not only incorrect but harmful to the proper development of democratic norms in the country as it was only parliament’s role to examine whether the constitution needed to be amended.

Though the superior judiciary could undoubtedly direct the executive branch to act in accordance with the provisions of law, it had no power to direct parliament to enact legislation or a constitutional amendment in accordance with the wishes of the superior judiciary.

Through his petition, the attorney-general said, the petitioner had proceeded on the basis of an alternate political theology that this court was directly authorized in some mystic manner to adjudicate the limits of its own powers, independent of the constitution.