ISLAMABAD, Feb 12: The Supreme Court on Friday suspended the Lahore High Court's (LHC) judgment of striking down Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO) 2000 under which death penalty below 18 years of age was abolished.

"Appeals against the December 6, 2004, high court judgment require consideration," Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui observed while admitting appeals for regular hearing with directions to respondent Farooq Ahmed to submit comments on petitions within three weeks.

A three-member bench, comprising the chief justice, Justice Javed Iqbal and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, was hearing identical appeals filed by the federation and the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (Sparc), an NGO, against the high court order. Both have pleaded before the Supreme Court to set aside LHC judgment against the ordinance.

"The operation of the impugned judgment is suspended till further orders. These petitions be fixed for regular hearing after comments are received," a short SC order said.

Promulgated by President Gen Pervez Musharraf in July 2000, the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was also given legal cover under the 17th Constitutional amendment. However, the high court struck the law down when Farooq Ahmad of Gujranwala challenged it by questioning trial court's order of separating trial of an accused for being a juvenile, who was part of a group which allegedly assaulted and burnt his son alive.

In its ruling, the LHC had held the federal ordinance as unconstitutional, unreasonable and impracticable because of "downright absurdities" creating a havoc in the country's criminal justice system. The high court had also ordered abolition of juvenile courts, created under the law, and transfer of all cases pending with them to ordinary courts of competent jurisdiction.

On Friday, Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan argued before the Supreme Court that the reasons listed by the high court to strike down the ordinance were not sustainable in law as its findings was based on extra-legal consideration.

The LHC judgment was based on unsubstantiated sociological considerations of the judges, especially when they held that the ordinance was impractical, unnecessary and not preceded by a detailed study. None of these provided the ground for striking down a legislation, he contended.

The high court, he argued, had also erred in interpreting articles 4 (right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law), 9 (security of person) and 25 (equality of citizens). In fact, the court failed to consider the real spirit of these articles, he contended.

The AG also referred to an earlier Supreme Court order in which it was held that these articles were actually meant to protect the weak and disadvantaged section of the society and that the Constitution itself recognized children as such section of the society.

Extra-judicial consideration could never by made a ground for striking down the ordinance which had been in the field since the year 2000, and on the basis of which numerous cases were decided by courts, he said.

Advocate Anis Jillani, representing Sparc, said Pakistan being a signatory to the International Convention on Child Rights of the United Nations, had a moral obligation towards protecting children rights.

He said death penalty below the age of 18 years was being awarded only in eight countries.

Referring to the Lahore High Court's observations that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was passed by an unrepresentative government without a detailed study and proper public or parliamentary debate, the federation in its petition stated that the law subsequently was affirmed, adopted and validated by a two-thirds majority of the parliament.

"It is also not the job of the courts to examine the quality of the legislators' decision-making since relationship between the judiciary and the parliament is not the same as between the judiciary and the executive branch," it said.