ISLAMABAD, March 24: Soon after Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry resumed charge on Tuesday, two petitions of sensitive nature having potential of casting far-reaching effects on the judiciary were moved.

One sought initiation of contempt of court proceedings against judges who took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order and the other sought a declaration against judges appointed without his (Justice Iftikhar) consultation.

Moved by Advocate Nadeem Malik, the first petition argued that those who had helped the imposition of extra-constitutional steps through their conduct committed wilful and intentional disobedience in defiance of the order of a seven-judge bench overruling the state of emergency moments after it was proclaimed by former president Pervez Musharraf on Nov 3, 2007.

Thirty-eight judges who had taken oath under the PCO, including outgoing chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqeer Mohammad Khokhar, Justice M. Javed Buttar and Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, are respondents.

The petitioner pleaded that the judges were liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Article 204 (contempt of court) of the Constitution. “It is high time to restrain from occupying the office of high profile the opportunists who aided, helped and assisted the extra-constitutional steps taken by a dictator,” the petition said.

The institution of the Supreme Court was brought into disrepute by the act of the respondent judges, it said, adding that they had committed gross professional misconduct and grievous contempt of the apex court.

In the second petition, Advocate Nadeem Ahmed through his counsel Mohammad Akram Sheikh prayed that all judges of the Supreme Court and high courts regardless of whether they took oath under the PCO or the Constitution should not be entitled to function if they were appointed without consultation of the chief justice.

The petition said: “The Supreme Court may not proceed with normal work on March 24 without first removing the inherent contradiction in the two basic legal assumption on which the composition of the apex court and the high courts stands today.

“Former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar could not be said to be exercising administrative control of the Supreme Court from November 3, 2007, to March 22, 2009. The apex court should not treat post-Nov 3 judges as judges, until the time the judgment validating the Nov 3 emergency in the 2008 Tikka Mohammad Iqbal case is recalled.

“The issuance of the cause list on the night of March 22 comprising persons, who have not been appointed in strict adherence to Article 177 of the Constitution (appointment of Supreme Court judges) and, therefore, complete strangers to the apex court, is a serious matter.

“Before proceeding, it is incumbent upon the chief justice to forthwith stop all these persons from hearing cases till their appointment is determined as valid.

“As head of the constitutional organ of the judiciary, it is the foremost constitutional duty of the chief justice to ensure that no person is treated or serves as a judge either in the apex court or any high court who has been appointed without his consultation.”
Tags: