Lawyers challenge 26th amendment in SHC

A Sindh Bar Council member and the president of the Malir Bar Association has challenged different sections of 26th Constitutional Amendments in the Sindh High Court.

Petitioner Mohammad Ashraf Sammi and MBA President Nasir Raza submitted that the parliament enacted 26th amendment in the constitution which violates the principles of separation of power, judicial independence and rule of the law.

They said the impugned amendments drastically undermine the authority of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the high courts by transferring constitutionally vested powers to some new constitutional benches unknown to the basic structure of the constitution.

The petitioners’ counsel Ali Tahir submitted that the amendment contemplates selection of chief justice from a panel of three senior most judges of the SC which is to be done by the special parliamentary committee, which is a clear attack on the independence of the judiciary and an attempt to undermine and control independence of the judges.

The counsel also questioned independence of casting of votes by the members of the parliament and submitted that if the court observed that two members of either house did not freely exercise their right of vote, the 26th amendment will be procedurally invalid and liable to be struck down.

He submitted that the parliament made an amendment in the 175 (A) (2) in which greater interference is allowed by the executive over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and judicial commission shall be composed of CJP, three senior judges of the SC, most senior judge of the constitutional bench, federal minister of law, attorney general of Pakistan, an advocate nominated from Pakistan Bar Council, two members from Senate, two members from National Assembly and a woman or non-Muslim other than a member of Majlis-e-Shoora who is qualified to be member of the Senate as technocrat to be nominated by the speaker National Assembly.

He submitted that an increased non-judicial and political influence/interference in the appointment of judges may lead to compromising judicial independence and is contrary to the principle of trichotomy of powers.