BR100 Increased By (0.68%)
BR30 Increased By (0.95%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.54%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.59%)
BECO 6.17 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (6.93%)
BML 52.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-0.57%)
BOP 34.55 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (1.65%)
CNERGY 8.14 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.37%)
DCL 12.20 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 53.40 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (1.08%)
FCSC 5.19 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.37%)
FFL 18.06 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.61%)
FNEL 1.32 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (2.33%)
HUMNL 10.88 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 8.09 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.87%)
KOSM 5.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.17%)
MLCF 87.35 Increased By ▲ 0.84 (0.97%)
NBP 187.79 Increased By ▲ 2.63 (1.42%)
PACE 10.72 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.32%)
PAEL 39.86 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (1.12%)
PIAHCLA 26.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.34%)
PIBTL 17.03 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (2.16%)
PPL 229.99 Increased By ▲ 1.81 (0.79%)
PRL 34.89 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (0.61%)
PTC 67.24 Increased By ▲ 1.91 (2.92%)
SEARL 90.97 Increased By ▲ 0.84 (0.93%)
SSGC 26.88 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (1.05%)
TELE 8.62 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (4.11%)
THCCL 58.62 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.21%)
TPLP 8.64 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (5.11%)
TREET 24.73 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.82%)
TRG 69.87 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.23%)
WAVES 10.05 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.11%)
WTL 1.29 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.78%)

ISLAMABAD: Former judge of the Supreme Court Justice Maqbool Baqar also declined to be appointed as the ad hoc judge, a day after ex-SC judge former Justice Mushir Alam turned down the offer for the same position.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa has proposed four retired judges – Mushir Alam, Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Maqbool Baqar and Sardar Tariq Masood for appointment as ad hoc judges for three years in the apex court.

In this regard, CJP Qazi Faez summoned the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP)’s meeting today (Friday).

Ad hoc SC judges: Former Justices Tariq and Miankhel agree for their appointments

Justice (retired) Tariq Masood and Justice (retired) Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel have agreed to their appointment as ad hoc judges of the Supreme Court.

The sources said that Justice Maqbool was initially supportive of the appointment as ad hoc judge, but withdrew it on Thursday, citing personal and domestic reasons.

Justice Mushir Alam in his letter to JCP Chairman Justice Qazi Faez Isa has already declined the appointment. According to the letter; “It is an honor to be recognized for my legal expertise and contributions to society as a humble member of the Bench.”

He also mentioned; “It is with a heavy heart that I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept this esteemed appointment.”

It is learnt that Justice Alam expressed disappointment over the social media campaign that emerged, following the SC Registrar’s letter to the JCP members regarding the appointment of retired judges as ad hoc judges, as a significant reason for his decision.

The summary, sent by CJP Isa to all JCP members, stated that having perused the Registrar’s note and reviewed the statistics about the pendency of cases it transpired that despite our best efforts the cases continue to accumulate.

“Therefore, because of the huge number of pending cases and the ever-increasing trend of the institution of cases in the Supreme Court, an effective way to ensure that more cases are decided than instituted and to reduce, and hopefully eliminate the cases which are pending adjudication for several years, it would be appropriate to appoint experienced judges as ad hoc judges of the Supreme Court.”

“Such ad hoc judges can only be appointed if three years have not expired since their retirement. Luckily, we have a number of very experienced Judges enjoying excellent reputations who may be appointed,” it stated.

According to Article 182 of the Constitution; an ad hoc judge shall have the same power and jurisdiction as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.

M. Zahid Iftikhar Jul 19, 2024 03:40pm
PTI & cadres set new records of selfishness & damage to ordinary Pakistanis. Where shall the petitioners to SC go? Why must SC be preoccupied with 'urgent' PTI-related cases? why target ah-hoc judges?
0