ISLAMABAD, April 17 Even before President Asif Ali Zardari could grant assent to the 18th Constitution Amendment recently passed by parliament, a lawyer from Karachi has challenged in the Supreme Court the clauses that spell out a mechanism for appointment of superior court judges.

Senior counsel Mohammad Akram Sheikh filed on Saturday a petition on behalf of Advocate Nadeem Ahmed, one of the movers of the petition that earlier led the Supreme Court to declare illegal the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) proclaimed by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf on Nov 3, 2007.

Supreme Court Bar Association president Qazi Mohammad Anwar said he intended to challenge the setting up of an eight-member judicial commission, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, under the 18th amendment since, according to him, the amendment hurt the independence of judiciary.

The petition requests the court to declare the amendment to Article 175 (establishment and jurisdiction of courts) by adding clause “A” a clear violation done without legislative authority of parliament and thus impinging upon the independence of judiciary.

Legal observers termed the petition significant in the backdrop of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's Friday speech in which he had said that the legislature could make laws only within the parameters set out by the Constitution, but the judiciary could strike down any law found to be inconsistent with the injunctions of Islam and fundamental rights.

The federal government, through the law ministry, is the only respondent in the petition which was entertained by the court office on a Saturday morning, usually a holiday.

The petition has asked the apex court to declare amendments to Articles 177(1) [appointment of Supreme Court judges], 193(1) [appointment of high court judges] and 203(c) [Federal Shariat Court] of the Constitution as illegal and void ab initio.

The petition highlights many pertinent legal questions by asking exactly what public interest is being sought by allegedly giving eight handpicked members of parliament, the power to have a final say in deciding who could and who could not become a judge of a high court and also as to which high court judge deserves to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

The petition said the process of induction of superior court judges introduced through Article 175-A was so impractical that not a lawyer would ever agree to allow his name to be put forward for induction as a judge.