ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court praised parliament on Wednesday
for improving many provisions of the Constitution through logic and
reason by adopting the 18th Amendment, with Justice Javed Iqbal saying
that earlier ‘qualities of an angel’ were set for those aspiring to
become parliamentarians under Articles 62 (qualification) and 63
(disqualification).
“Every provision in the 18th Amendment is not bad and open to
criticism,” Justice Iqbal observed.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry asked the counsel
representing the Rawalpindi High Court Bar Association not to politicise
courts.
“We will perform our due role as all 17 members of the bench are
protectors of the Constitution,” observed the chief justice who is
heading the 17-judge full-court hearing 21 petitions challenging
different aspects of the 18th Amendment, including the appointment of
superior court judges under Article 175-A of the Constitution.
In a related development, senior vice-president of the National Party
Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo, senior counsel Abid Hasan Minto, columnist
Kamran Shafi and members of civil society organisations filed on
Wednesday an interveners’ petition in favour of the 18th Amendment with
an attempt to place a broad-based civil society perspective before the
court.
Filed through Advocate Salman Raja, the petition disputed that the
occasion had arisen for invoking the basic structure or basic features
doctrine while deciding the instant petitions against the amendment,
especially insertion of Article 175-A into the Constitution.
The petition defends Article 175-A as an attempt by parliament to put
in place a transparent process aimed at generating a broad agreement
among different stakeholders with respect to successful candidates for
appointment in the superior judiciary.
“Is the role of the parliamentary committee not subsidiary to that of
the judicial commission under Article 175-A in so far the PC may only
disapprove a name forwarded by the commission with a super majority of
six out of eight drawn from across political divides in parliament,” the
petition asked.
It said the parliamentary committee would not suggest any name on its
own, therefore no person could be appointed to the superior judiciary
without enjoying the support of the judicial commission. “Consequently,
only those people will be elevated to the bench whose professional
competence and character have passed the test of scrutiny by the
judicial commission and are not unacceptable to an overwhelming majority
of members of the parliamentary committee.”
The petition said: “The collective maturity that the people of
Pakistan have always exhibited when allowed the opportunity to
participate in matters of national importance testifies to the fact that
the people deserve a process of judicial appointments that is opened to
them and is transparent.
“While members of the superior judiciary headed by the chief justice
are most eminently placed to form a view as regards the professional
competence of an individual and to assess reports of different executive
agencies with respect to the integrity and character of a potential
appointee, questions regarding a candidate’s world view and social
vision deserve scrutiny and assessment by the people of Pakistan at the
widest level of inclusion.
“Are the people of Pakistan not entitled to effective participation
in the process of appointments, particularly to the superior judiciary,
so as to be able to assess and provide input with respect to different
proposed candidates?”
The petition said it did not deny that the quality of different
members of parliament could be highly variable, but the matter was not
about this or any other parliament in particular. Institutional maturity
could only come through grant of responsibility.
The petition said: “The Objectives Resolution will remain a political
document open to contestation among the people of Pakistan. The basic
structure doctrine and its particular version that relies on the
Objectives Resolution are designed to subjugate the present and future
generations of the country to the myth of an immutable social contract
entered into in the past on behalf of all posterity.
“This will not only impoverish the political process but also erode
respect for democracy and parliament in the hearts and minds of the
people of this country.”
Earlier, Advocate Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry, the counsel for the
Rawalpindi High Court Bar Association, argued that insertion into the
Constitution of Article 175-A and amendments to Articles 177, 193 and
203(c) would destroy independence of the judiciary and the system of
appointment of judges.
Barrister Zafarullah of the Watan Party opposed an amendment to
Article 17(4) which requires political parties to hold elections within
parties.
He said the provision was a fundamental requirement for parliamentary
democracy and after the amendment political parties would become
“family limited companies”. | 
