ISLAMABAD, March 20: Recent appointments to the Supreme Court in violation of the principle of seniority have undermined the independence of judiciary and if the process of “pick and choose” is not checked, judges will be left with no option except to approach the executive for elevation.

This was stated by the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Hamid Khan, before a five-member bench of the apex court on Wednesday.

The SCBA president, starting his arguments on the merits of the petition that has challenged the appointments of three judges from the Lahore High Court, demanded that the judges who had been superseded, must be made a party to the case.

The demand was opposed by the federation’s counsel, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who said that the Supreme Court while deciding the Al Jehad case, commonly known as the Judges Case, had not issued notice to any of the judges in spite of the fact that many of them had to leave the judiciary because of that judgment.

Earlier, at the outset of proceedings, Mr Pirzada stated that personal attacks had been made on him by the SCBA in its rejoinder.

Mr Khan denied that the SCBA had attacked the person of Mr Pirzada. In fact, he explained, the federation had been accused of hiding facts and not the person of the federation’s counsel.

Mr Pirzada said that he had nothing to hide. All the judges were appointed on the recommendations of the Chief Justice and added that the concerned record must be available with the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmad observed that levelling allegations on such a prominent member of the bar would be unfortunate and it must be avoided.

The SC bench included Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, Justice Mian Ajmal, Justice Deedar Hussain Shah and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.

Insisting that details of the judges’ appointments were not submitted to the court, the SCBA president argued that 10 judges had been superseded and there must be some justification for ignoring as many as 10 judges.

He further said that consultation of the chief justice in the matter must be brought on the court record. The Al Jehad case, he argued, had been accepted by the Bar with the view that it would promote transparency.

He said the statement submitted by the federation on Tuesday gave the impression that federation was hiding something. If the cloak of secrecy was not lifted, he added, people would be left with no option except to draw their own conclusions.

The notification for the appointment of judges, he said, was issued on Dec 26 but it came into effect on Jan 10, 2002. The intervening period, he contended, showed that there was a well thought out plan because Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan had to retire on Jan 6.

The SCBA president explained that his association had no objection to the appointment of Justice Sardar Raza Khan as he was the senior most in the Peshawar High Court at the time of his appointment to the SC. However, he pointed out, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday (LHC) was on No 3, Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi (LHC) on No 4, and Justice Fakeer Mohammad Khokhar (LHC) was on No 13 on the seniority list.

The SCBA president stated that the question which had offended the Bar was why judges from No 5 to 12, had been ignored. He said the Bar had strived for the implementation of the Al Jehad case verdict as the government of the time was in no mood to accept the SC judgment. Now it was the duty of the Bar to protect the judgment, he added.

He stated that independence of judiciary was a fundamental right and it was necessary for the independent judiciary that appointments were made on the basis of merit and merit alone.

He said the SCBA’s concern was that appointments must not be made on the basis of “pick and choose.” Mr Khan will continue his arguments on Thursday.