PESHAWAR, Sept 7: A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court on Tuesday adjourned hearing in a writ petition challenging the reduction in the retirement age of judges of the superior courts through the 17th Amendment Act.

The petitioners, Khanzada Ajmal Zeb Khan and Maulvi Syed Iqbal Haider, have requested the court to declare as ultra vires the amendments in Articles 179 and 195 of the Constitution through which the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court was reduced to 65 years from 68 and that of high court judges to 62 from 65 years.

They prayed the court to declare those amendments made through the 17th Amendment as being in contravention to the Principles of the Objective Resolution. When the petition was taken up for preliminary hearing, Ajmal Zeb sought adjournment in the case, stating that the senior counsel was not present. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk and Justice Qazi Ahsanullah Qureshi, accepted his request.

The petitioners stated that through the Legal Framework Order amendments were made in Articles 179, 193 and 195 of the Constitution. They stated that through those amendments the retirement age for the Supreme Court judges was enhanced to 68 years from 65, whereas that of high court judges to 65 years from 62.

They stated that an amendment was also made in Article 193 which enhanced the minimum age for the appointment of a judge to the high court to 45 years from 40 years. They stated that through the 17th Amendment Articles 179 and 195 were amended and the retirement age for the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts were reduced to 65 and 62 years respectively.

However, they added that the minimum appointing age of the high court judges was left as 45 years and it was not touched in the 17th Constitution Amendment. They stated that according to Entry No 55 of the Federal Legislative List in the Constitution, the Parliament had the powers to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but it had no powers to reduce its jurisdiction.

The petitioners added that the reduction in the retirement age for the judges was directly related to the independence of the judiciary, and the Parliament had no powers to reduce the retirement age for the judges.