Is the appointment of judges a private issue of the judiciary?

The 'camel' of the twenty-sixtha constitutional amendment will be put to one side or the other in the next four or six days. There are only two possibilities. One is that the amendment should become a part of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan making a way through a door, window or window.

Second, it may be better to break all the doors, windows and walls and leave the soil of the files in the Ministry of Law in the graveyard.

The Muslim League (N) and the PPP consider it an incomplete agenda of the "Democracy Charter" agreed eighteen years ago, which was signed by Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Agreeing to this pledge of comprehensive reforms, more or less the entire political leadership including Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Imran Khan have endorsed it.

 The charter begins with judicial reforms, Article 3 of which deals with the procedure for the appointment of judges and Article 4 of the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court.

They had no relationship with the current scenario. At that time, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah were not even part of the judiciary. But 18 years ago, like today, the main problem was how to adapt the justice system to the civilized norms of the constitution and the law and how to make the appointment of judges a part of such a credible exercise that gives credibility and dignity to the judiciary. He could clean it from political luxuries.

After the protracted martial laws of Ayub and Yahya and their consequent downfall in Dhaka, the unanimous adoption of the 1973 constitution was a very positive and promising start to the renaissance, but only four years later, the throne of democracy for the third time. Overturned.

The new constitution was suspended. The judiciary, which had sworn allegiance to the new constitution of the new Pakistan, faced its first test. He did not take even a few hours to pronounce his decision. The chief justices of the four provincial high courts took the oath of the provincial governors under the new arrangement and gave a 'short unwritten' but practical decision that they are standing with guns and not with the constitution. Declaring the revolution "lawful and lawful" was merely a formality. Our judiciary could never stand up to unconstitutional dictators as an institution.

Instead of the constitution, democracy and parliament, he always sided with those who crushed them underfoot. When the former happened to the dictators, she considered them as allies and became soft like silk. When dealing with the elected democratic governments and the parliament, he became as hard and inflexible as steel, knowing the truth and the void. Judiciary, which considers it an honor and honor to turn the mansion of dictators into rubble, has always called democracy its handmaiden. This philosophy of justice and fairness made the judiciary a powerful army that never thought about what it was doing to the country and the people while making the parliament, democracy and politicians a mockery.

There are dozens of decisions that can only be found in a 'Bayad-i-Damat'. There is hardly any important decision of those who have taken the oath of "without fear and submissiveness and without complacency and obstinacy" on which "fear" is not shadowed, which does not give the impression of "condescension", on which "appeal" ” is not stamped and which does not smell of “anad”.

Nawaz Sharif, who was elected with a huge majority, is still suffering from the decision not to take salary from his son. Moving ahead at every scale and soaring to new heights by overcoming long-standing problems, Pakistan was thrown into such a deep ditch in the blink of an eye that it is still struggling to get out of. In 2017, under the pressure of the five judges, history will only blame them.

Asif Saeed Khosa, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Gulzar Ahmad, Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Ejaz Ul Ahsan, no matter how much they get a huge pension, no matter how attractive benefits they get, no matter how much they live in luxurious residences, Pakistan will definitely hold their necks.

Even today, Pakistan seems to overcome its difficulties by trying hard.  The threat of bankruptcy has averted despite all the taunts of the ill-wishers. The rate of inflation has reached 6.9 percent after touching 40 percent. 

Foreign exchange reserves have increased.  The stock exchange is touching new highs.  Interest rates are gradually decreasing. The rupee has stabilized. Exports are increasing.  Monthly remittances from overseas Pakistanis have reached nearly three billion dollars. Investments are increasing. Unlike in 2017, the armed forces are playing the hand of the government in the nation-building agenda. In such a situation, the dangers of corrupting the system are once again emerging from the same "office of justice" which is sometimes called "necessity", sometimes "convenience", sometimes "constitutional balance" and sometimes "complete justice". In the name of people of Pakistan have been losing their destiny. 

The interpretation and interpretation of 63(A) was also born from the womb of a political agenda which plunged the coming months and years into chaos. The decision of 12th July is also such a masterpiece which has unleashed all-round chaos by blowing up the blueprints of the constitution and law to achieve specific goals.

After getting rid of the martial laws, have we been given the torture of a dictatorship beyond the constitution and the law, which does the same thing with the scales in front of the traditional dictators instead of the gun?

The 26th Amendment provides for a constitutional court which is functioning in about 80 countries of the world.

This amendment seeks to bring back the procedure of appointing judges to the 18th Amendment, which Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had condemned in the name of "independence of the judiciary" and the 19th Amendment by placing a gun on the floor of Parliament. The eight-member parliamentary committee is not paralyzed but buried. In 2022, eight members of the committee unanimously rejected the appointment of three judges in the Peshawar High Court.

The judiciary rejected this unanimous decision of the parliamentary committee.  The three judges took oath.

Should this situation continue?

Should judges nominate and appoint judges themselves?

There is nothing in these two amendments which even slightly infringes on one's fundamental rights. On the contrary, it strengthens the right to justice of thousands of oppressed people who rot in jails for years and their complaints do not reach the Supreme Court.

In the United States of America, judges are nominated by the president.

The senate spends months sitting in front of the nominated judge and mercilessly criticizes him. She has absolute power to reject the nomination of a judge. Can summon any judge. Can punish.  Pakistan is still far away from this destination.

But should the parliament, administration and the president be completely excluded from the matter of appointing judges and leave it to the judges themselves like a domestic issue?