CJP sends Justice Erum Sajjad’s elevation case to bench for hearing

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar Thursday dismissed the objection of registrar office raised on a petition challenging non-confirmation of elevation of Justice Mrs Erum Sajjad Gul of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

The chief justice while hearing the appeal in his chamber filed by Justice (R) Nasira Javed Iqbal on behalf of Mrs Erum Sajjad Gul overruled the objections raised by the registrar office and directed fixing of the petition before a bench of the apex court.

Last year on October 14, Justice (R) Nasira Javed Iqbal had filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution through her counsel Shah Khawar challenging the order passed by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, dated May 5, 2017 by non-confirming the service of Justice Mrs Erum Sajjad Gul of the LHC. She had prayed the apex court to set aside the impugned order of May 04, 2017, passed by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan to the extent of non-confirmation of Erum Sajjad and send the matter back to the respondent Judicial Commission for reconsidering her case and also for deciding the unanimous reference sent to the Judicial Commission by the respondent parliamentary committee in the larger interest of justice.

The registrar office of the Supreme Court had raised objection on the petition and stated that the confirmation of service of Erum Sajjad as judge of the LHC was an individual matter, not a matter of public importance. The registrar office had further stated that the petition has not availed an alternative remedy available in law and had returned the petition along with all original copies.

Later, Justice (R) Nasira Javed Iqbal challenged the objections of the registrar office while filing an appeal in the chamber of Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar.

In her petition, Nasira Javed had contended that after serving for one year as judges of the LHC, the names of judges seeking confirmation were placed before the JCP in the 2016. The said judges included Justice Javaid Minhas, Justice Sardar Ahmed Naeem, Justice Gulzar Awan, Justice Erum Sajjad, Justice Raja Shahid Abbasi, Justice Sheram Sarwar Chaudhry, Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi and Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar.

The petitioner submitted that in its first meeting the JCP dropped the names of Justice Javaid Minhas and Justice Gulzar Awan and were of the opinion that Justice Sardar Ahmed Naeem, Justice Erum Sajjad, Justice Sheram Sarwar Chaudhry and Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi be confirmed while the other two judges be given a further extension of one year.

The petitioner submitted that in the end it was decided by the JCP that none of the judges be confirmed and they all be given a further one year extension. But after completing two years of service, all these judges were confirmed except the single female judge Erum Sajjad, even though she decided 10,000 cases which were upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” the petitioner had informed the apex court. She submitted that according to the record kept by the LHC amongst the sitting judges of the LHC, Justice Erum had disposed of maximum cases in these two years. She was applauded for her hard work by the chief justice and other senior judges of the LHC.

She further contended that Justice Erum during these two years served as a single bench as well as in different division benches of the LHC. Similarly, she authored highly sensitive cases of terrorism, NAB etc. which were upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner submitted.

The petitioner submitted that non-confirmation of Justice Erum is a clear violation of Article 25 read with other provisions of the Constitution and is also a major setback to the women of Pakistan, discouraging female Lawyers by sending them a message that females are not appropriate to be High Court Judges.

The petitioner had contended that though Justice Erum was an upright, honest, intelligent, hardworking and capable judge but she was not confirmed as a high court judge. The petitioner had pleaded that the issue to be determined in the constitutional petition is a question of public importance as contemplated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.