ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was on Tuesday requested to order fixing 65 years as retirement age of the chief judge and judges of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan (SAC-GB) instead of the present fixed tenure of three years.
“The provision relating to the fixing of the retirement age of the chief judge and two judges of the SAC-GB is discriminatory, thus unconstitutional being against Article 25 of the Constitution, read with Article 26 of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order (GB-Order), 2018,” argued a joint petition moved by president of the Supreme Appellate Court Bar Association (SACBA-GB) Muhammad Hussain Shehad, vice chairman of the GB Bar Council Shafqat Wali, general secretary of the SACBA-GB and former president of the SACBA-Gilgit. The petition has been filed through senior counsel Hamid Khan and Muhammad Waqar Rana.
Petition argues present fixed tenure term of three years discriminatory, unconstitutional
“The fixing of tenure of judges of the SAC-GB under Article 75(8) of the GB-Order is also against the independence of the judiciary. Nowhere in Pakistan are judges of the apex court appointed on a tenure basis, except in GB,” the petition said, adding that this classification was also against the principle of intelligible differentia and violative of the independence of judiciary being one of the elements of salient features of the Constitution as well as the GB-Order 2018.
“The chief judge and judges of the Chief Court in GB have same length of service and retiring age as other high courts of Pakistan, but the chief judge and judges of the SAC have been dealt with differently for no apparent reasons,” the petition regretted.
Moreover, denial of pension to the chief judge and associate judges under the GB-Order 2018 was void and unconstitutional as under the earlier orders these judges were granted pension, the petition said, adding that under the Constitution even the judges appointed on tenure posts were entitled to pension.
The petition referred to the tenure appointments of the chief justice and judges of the Federal Shariat Court, who after three years of tenure post get pension and related benefits under Article 203C(9) of the Constitution.
“It clearly shows that in Pakistan, including Azad Kashmir, judges of the superior judiciary whether regular or on tenure posts are entitled to pension and allied benefits. In GB too, judges of the SAC used to be entitled to pension and related benefits like the rest of the country prior to the amendment to the GB-Order 2018,” it contended.
“In view of the illegalities and inconsistency with the Constitution, it is the duty of the respondents, namely President Dr Arif Alvi, secretary of the GB Council and the SAC, to bring the GB-Order 2018 in conformity with the Constitution and secure the independence of judiciary for the people of GB.
“It is a matter of record that the federal government had given a commitment and an undertaking for enforcing the proposed Gilgit-Baltistan Reforms Order, 2019 and it was bound to honour the commitment and undertaking made to the Supreme Court in the Civil Aviation case,” the petition recalled, regretting that the federal government had miserably failed to honour its commitment and violated its undertaking.
The petition said that if the judiciary alone was made independent, the entire dream of the people of the area would be fulfilled without compromising on any state position with respect to its international obligations and commitments, considered as hurdle in any legal or constitutional package despite clear judgement of the Supreme Court.
Published in Dawn, November 10th, 2021
