LAHORE, Nov 1: Supreme Court Bar Association president Hamid Khan has said the judges of the superior courts should take a clear position whether or not they would accept the increase in their retirement age from the outgoing military regime and be permanently beholden to them.

Speaking at a reception hosted in his honour by journalists at the Lahore High Court Bar Association here on Friday, Mr Khan said the amendment was made between the night of Oct 9 and 10, when new partnerships came into being, with the obvious intention that it would escape the notice and attention of the Bar and the people due to their occupation with the general election and its results.

He said the amendment regarding enhancement in the retirement age of the judges was never circulated despite repeated claims of Gen Musharraf that no amendment in the Constitution would be made without prior circulation and it was an affront to dozens of resolutions of the Bar councils and associations in the country to the effect that this settled matter would not be tampered with. The lawyers community throughout the country was in shock over the unholy attempt to reward the judges for their favourable verdicts and induce them for future compromises on their credibility and independence in the process.

“Let me state it without any fear of contradiction that the Bar will not countenance this blatant attempt to compromise the judiciary. The lawyers of Pakistan will not sit in peace till this tampering with the retirement age of judges is either renounced or nullified. The Bar will spearhead a movement for undoing this and ensuring that in future judiciary cannot be subjected to threat or inducement at the hands of the military rulers,” he observed.

He said the Bar had been repeatedly disappointed and chagrined by the attitude of the judiciary in difficult times by wilting under the pressure of unconstitutional regimes and by capitulating meekly in disunity and disarray. The Bar always offered its strength and support to the judiciary in such difficult times but unfortunately the personal ambitions of the members of judiciary prevailed over the collective good of the judicial institution.

“They abandoned their oath to protect the Constitution and submitted themselves to serve under undemocratic and unconstitutional dispensations,” he added. He said it was a misconception that oath under PCO had saved the judiciary. In fact disunity in the ranks of judiciary had always led to its manipulation at the hands of dictatorial regimes and ultimately undermined its independence and credibility. “Had the members of judiciary on January 26, 2001, stood united behind the then chief justice, the country would have been spared of the agony it later suffered at the hands of the military regime,” he observed.

He said it was a matter of pride for him as a representative of the lawyers fraternity that the Bar had always played an effective role in defending the Constitution, promoting rule of law and advancing the independence of judiciary. The Bar during the military government or other dictatorial regimes openly and courageously played the role of a vanguard in the struggle for the restoration of Constitution and democracy and independence of judiciary. Nothing would deter it from continuing its struggle for the revival of the Constitution and restoration of an independent judiciary. Any threat to initiate any proceedings against him or other representatives of the Bar now or in future would be met with greater determination to continue the just struggle to accomplish the laudable objectives.

He said the reading of the Supreme Court order on his written statement at the Bar filed in open court on Oct 28 had deeply pained him. “I deny the accusation of having committed contempt of court in any sense of the expression. In the first place, statement of truth does not constitute contempt. Secondly, statement or resolution of the Bar on the working of the courts or state of the judiciary in general does not constitute contempt. In my case, I fear nothing in the exercise of my duties as representative of the lawyers of Pakistan,” he stated.

He said it was unfortunate that constructive criticism by the Bar expressed through its resolutions had not been taken in its right spirit and perspective. It had rather been made a subject of personal attack on him despite the fact that the statement made was based on resolutions of the representative institution of the Bar. A healthy institutional criticism had been misconstrued as a personal affront.

“It is painful to read strong language and expressions bordering on invectives used in the order. Apart from being inappropriate, the language used is unbecoming of the apex court,” he observed.

Pakistan Bar Council vice-chairman Ashraf Wahla, members of Pakistan and Punjab Bar councils and Supreme Court and Lahore High Court Bar associations attended the reception.