HYDERABAD: A segment of Hyderabad’s legal fraternity on Tuesday rejected the just passed 26th constitutional amendment and described it an attack on sovereignty of independent judiciary.

They regretted that judiciary had been made subservient to parliament through the 26th amendment and it would obviously be dispensing justice accordingly.

Speaking at a press conference in the local press club, lawyers Naveed Jarwar, Mir Ahmed Mangrio, Israr Chang, Taimoor Keerio and others said that they were contacting all likeminded members of the legal fraternity for launching a movement against the amendment. “The amendment has deprived the judiciary of its independence, earned after the 2007 popular movement of lawyers,” they said.

They observed that ever since the inception of Pakistan, the establishment and political governments had been collectively exploiting the Constitution and parliament in their own interests. They amended it for the issues that have nothing to do with public’s good.

“The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2024 has been passed in a nontransparent manner in the dark of night which is condemnable,” they said.

The lawyers said that amending the Constitution was parliament’s right but the way this was done was strange. They termed the develpment ‘blackest day’ in the history of the country’s democracy.

They lamented that the amendment delegated even many rights of provinces to federation through the special parliamentary committee which was a matter of grave concern.

They said the amendment to the Article 175(a)(3) would ensure appointment of Supreme Court chief justice on the committee’s recommendation, instead of automatic appointment of the senior most SC judge. “This shows that no one among SC judges could expect becoming the CJP; every judge would be trying to appease federal government, the institutions concerned and the special committee through their judgements and orders to ensure becoming the CJP.

They added that now parliamentarians had been included in the special committee and, besides technocrat, attorney, presiding judge of constitutional bench and federal law minister, five members of the committee would become minority which was an attack on sovereignty of independent judiciary.

They said now SC would not be able to exercise suo motu powers or pass order on any point which would not be part of actual prayer. “It means that even if SC realises that point of injustice is involved, it could not pass any order on it. This is a violation of fundamental human rights,” they said.

Similarly, the lawyers said, the Article 186-A was also amended through which case of any high court could be transferred to not only some other high court, but the apex court as well, which was indeed concerning and bound to undermine provincial autonomy. There are apprehensions that any case could be transferred to any other court if it is feared that the high court concerned might deliver its judgement against federation to protect province’s right.

They feared that an incumbent CJP could become facilitator in the appointment of judges having ‘executive approach’ for their induction in constitutional benches.

They demanded that the present CJP should not be assigned any role in the judicial commission for appointment of judges in constitutional benches. They observed that the timing of this amendment was very important, pointing out that the review judgement on Article 63A was given in haste.

They also noted that around 55,000 cases were pending in the apex court out of approximately 1.86m cases pending in the judiciary across the country, and only a marginal number of the pending cases in SC pertained to constitutional matters.

They regretted that judiciary had been made subservient to parliament through the 26th amendment and it would be dispensing justice accordingly. They said that the judiciary, lime parliament, had also been brought under control now.

The lawyers noted that this amendment was drafted in the wake of the 8-5 judgement on reserved seats.

Published in Dawn, October 23th, 2024