MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a review petition against its judgment of July this year whereby the appointment of five judges of the region’s high court was set aside for being ultra vires the constitution and without lawful authority.

Surprisingly, the petition was jointly filed by AJK President Sardar Masood Khan through secretary presidential affairs as well as the AJK government and four of the five sacked judges, Raja Raza Ali Khan, Sardar Mohammad Ejaz Khan, Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry and Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, all belonging to the bar.

Ch Mohammad Munir, the fifth judge from the bench who was demoted to his previous position of district and session judge, did not join the petitioners.

All five were appointed as judges on May 21, 2018 but shortly afterwards their appointment notification was called into question in the high court by lawyers from different parts of AJK through six writ petitions.

The high court dismissed the petitions in September 2017, but its verdict was challenged by the petitioners in the AJK apex court, where it was heard by acting chief justice Raja Saeed Akram Khan and Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mughal.

On July 17, the apex court set aside the appointments, holding that the consultation for the appointments had not been made in accordance with the spirit of the constitution as well as the dictum laid down by the superior courts.

The review petition was filed by the president, government and four sacked judges on Aug 18.

“A frivolous application has been filed by the counsel for the petitioners with mala fide intention for adjournment of the hearing on Tuesday, but we have rejected the plea as we have observed that the petitioners are intentionally avoiding arguing the case,” the bench noted.

The bench held that no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record had been pointed out in the review petition, rendering it liable to be dismissed and added that reasons would be recorded later on in the detailed judgment.

The bench maintained that the AJK president had been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation without adhering to the fact that being the constitutional head of the state he held the highly prestigious office.

“Under the constitution, the president is immune from any sort of proceedings in relation to performance of functions of his office.

“It appears that an attempt has deliberately been made to malign his office on the one hand and undermine the authority of the apex court on the other, whereas, no such observations relating to the office of the president have been made basis for review of the judgment.”

The bench also took umbrage at the inclusion of the private petitioners (sacked judges) in a petition filed by the government, saying it had created a “very bad impression” because the government was not supposed to contest the case of private petitioners.

Published in Dawn, December 16th, 2020