What a remarkable coincidence! It’s crucial to recognize that the rule affecting Justice Mansoor Shah and Justice Muneeb Akhtar has already been utilized by these same judges just months prior in the Lahore High Court.
They advocated for the appointment of Justice Alia Neelam, who was ranked third on the merit list, to the position of Chief Justice.
This decision came at the expense of the two most senior judges of the high court, highlighting an apparent disregard for seniority and experience in favor of an alternative criterion.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, despite having the authority to recommend any name for the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court opted to present three names before the Commission.
If the third-ranking judge in the Lahore High Court can be appointed as the chief justice, why can’t the third-ranking judge in the Supreme Court receive the same consideration?
What was deemed valid regarding the Lahore High Court, without any constitutional cover, is now being called into question in the Supreme Court despite adherence to the Constitution provision in its support.
How did this change occur? Lawyers are upset about the decision not to appoint the senior-most judge as Chief Justice.
The question arises: when a similar situation occurred in the highest court of the country’s largest province, why did no one voice concerns?
The principle of seniority that is being referenced now—why was it not applied when judges were transferred from the High Court to the Supreme Court?
Was there a conflict of interest among different chambers?
When Justice Munib Akhtar was appointed to the Supreme Court, three judges senior to him in the Sindh High Court were overlooked. If seniority is the only criterion, could someone explain why these three judges were ignored?
It should be noted that both the Sindh Bar Council and some judges of the Sindh High Court objected to the appointment of Justice Muneeb Sahib as a Supreme Court judge. Was this appointment not a violation of the verdict in the Al-Jihad Trust case?
Additionally, is it not true that Justice Ayesha Malik was ranked fourth in seniority on the Lahore High Court list, yet three judges senior to her were overlooked for her appointment to the Supreme Court?
Furthermore, have Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi not also been promoted to the Supreme Court despite being juniors?
Is it merely a coincidence that the five judges of the eight-member bench who issued the explanatory note on two occasions are the same judges appointed to the Supreme Court despite being juniors, while their senior counterparts were overlooked? Is it truly just a coincidence?
Furthermore, a junior judge from the High Court was appointed to the Supreme Court, while a neglected senior judge was also brought in later. Who is asking why these judges, previously ignored, were appointed later on? If the Supreme Court later on considers those judges, why were they not elevated in the past?
The general public may not be aware, but those who know understand the underlying purpose behind these appointments.
There seems to be a deliberate effort to bring in preferred judges and elevate juniors over their seniors.
Parliament has not introduced anything new; it is simply applying the same principles that have already existed at various levels. If Parliament has amended the Constitution so that a person’s seniority is not the sole criterion for eligibility, what is wrong with that?
Any university should conduct research involving its law students to investigate how many individuals from specific chambers have become judges.
Recently, Hamid Khan announced the launch of a movement among lawyers. The question arises: how did he come to this decision, and what is the basis for it?
Hamid Khan is widely recognized as one of the most capable members of the legal community. However, it is essential to ask in what capacity he proclaimed this lawyers’ movement.
Is he an elected official of any lawyers’ organization? Does he hold a position that grants him the authority to make decisions on behalf of the legal fraternity?
Is he the President of the Supreme Court Bar, the High Court Bar, or a member of the Pakistan Bar Council or any Provincial Bar Council?
Lawyers elect their leaders through voting each year. Only the elected leadership is empowered to make such decisions. There are no Khans, Sardars, or Nawabs among lawyers. Lawyers are not subservient to anyone. Thus, how can an unelected individual decide to spearhead a movement on behalf of all lawyers?
| ReplyForward |
