P L D 2011 Supreme Court 308 (PLP)
MUNIR HUSSAIN BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and another — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2011 Supreme Court 308 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain |
| Parties | MUNIR HUSSAIN BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2011 Supreme Court 308 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2011 Supreme Court 308 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2011 Supreme Court 308 (PLP) (MUNIR HUSSAIN BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No.10 of 2011), Arshad Ali Ch., Advocate assisted by Faisal Hussain Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court, Khurrum Hashmi, Utnair Malik, Hyder Ali Khan and Saad Hashmi Advocate for Petitioners.
- Anwar Mansoor Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P.No.18 of 2011), Abid S. Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Asim Mansoor Klian, Advocate for Petitioners.
- K.K. Agha, Addl. A.G., Pakistan and M.S. Khattak, Advocate- on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Iftikharullah Babar, Acting Secretary Senate for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts.175-A & 184(3)
Appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Federal Shariat Court
Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution before Supreme Court challenging, inter alia, decision of Parliamentary. Committee disagreeing with the recommendations for extension in tenure of Judges of High Courts by Judicial Commission and deciding not to recommend the names of said Judges for appointment as Judges
Held, decision of the Parliamentary Committee, whereby the names of the said Judges were not confirmed for extension in their tenure, was not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; as a result, the said decision of the Parliamentary Committee was set aside
Supreme Court directed the respondents/authorities to implement the recommendations of the Judicial Commission in respect of the said Judges and to issue notifications for the appointment of the said Judges in consonance with the recommendations of the Judicial Commission.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.
We have heard these two constitutional petitions at great length. These petitions relate to the functions of two institutions newly introduced into our Constitution namely, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the Parliamentary Committee. These two bodies have been created in the newly added Article 175-A of the Constitution.
2. Very briefly stated the petitioners have challenged inter alia, the two decisions of the Parliamentary Committee one in respect of four Additional Judges of the Lahore High Court and the other in respect of two Additional Judges of the Sindh High Court. The Judicial Commission had made recommendations for extension in tenure of these six Judges as Judges respectively of the Lahore and Sindh High Courts. The Parliamentary Committee has, however, disagreed with the recommendations of the Judicial Commission and has decided not to recommend the names of these six Judges for appointment as Judges respectively of the Lahore and Sindh High Courts.
3. During extensive arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties including the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Attorney General objecting to the maintainability of these petitions, we have examined the newly added constitutional provisions and more specifically Article 175-A of the Constitution. We have also considered the case law copiously cited before us. We have, however, consciously confined our consideration of these petitions and arguments advanced, to the specific facts and circumstances of these cases. Having considered the same, for detailed reasons to be recorded later, these petitions are allowed in the following terms:-- (a) We declare that the decision of the Parliamentary Committee, whereby the names of the aforesaid six Judges were not confirmed for extension in their tenure, are not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; (b) as a result of the above, we set aside the decision of the Parliamentary Committee dated 2-2-2011 in respect of four 2 Additional Judges of the Lahore High Court namely, Justice Mamoon Rashid Sheikh, Justice Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akber Naqvi and Justice Muhammad Yawar Ali and the decision of the Parliamentary Committee dated 22-2-2011 in respect of two Additional Judges of the Sindh High Court namely, Justice Salman Hamid and Justice Muhammad Tasnim; (c) consequently, we direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Judicial Commission in respect of the four above named Judges of the Lahore High Court and the recommendations of the Judicial Commission in respect of the two above named Judges of the Sindh High Court and to issue notifications for the appointment of the said Judges 'in consonance with the recommendations of the Judicial Commission. M.A.K./M-13/SC Order accordingly.