Number of superior judiciary judges: Supreme Court reserves verdict on identical pleas

The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday reserved its verdict on various identical pleas of a number of superior judiciary judges, who were rendered dysfunctional after July 31, 2009 decision for taking oath under annulled provisional constitutional order (PCO) of November 3, 2007.
The apex court reserved its verdict on two main points which included issuance of show cause notices to the dysfunctional judges of superior judiciary and military officers during former president Musharraf's rule and appointing of lawyers fraternity office-bearers as amicus curia.
A four member bench comprising Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddqui, Justice Jawad S Khawja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Pervez reserved verdict after conclusion of arguments by counsels of PCO judges.
Dr Abdul Basit, counsel for a PCO judge Justice Hasnaat Ahmad Khan and Justice Syed Sabbar Raza Rizvi of Lahore High Court (LHC) submitted an application before the bench, pleading that Supreme Court should call all the stakeholders as amicus curia including president Supreme Court Bar Association, vice chairman of Pakistan Bar Council, chairman executive committee Pakistan Bar counsel, presidents of all High court Bar Associations and vice chairmen of all provincial bar councils.
Dr Basit said that the judges were sacred cows and if the court would bring them in contempt proceedings then they would become only cows with no respect in society. He said that the court should not open the door of contempt proceedings against the fellow judges as it would have far reaching consequences for the judiciary.
He said that Chief Justice of the High Court could not exercise his suo moto powers under the law declared by Supreme Court as it would also be a contempt. So, it would be better for the independence of judiciary not to open the door of contempt and end these proceedings because they were also the judges who took oath under the constitution.
While S M Zafar, counsel for Justice Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, a dysfunctional judge of the apex Court, apprised the bench that the court should no pass an order against them. He said that in 18th amendment the Parliament had placed bar on those judges who could take oath under PCO, so it was sufficient for future adventurism.
S M Zafar also supported the application of Dr Basit seeking amicus curia in this case. The Court after hearing these arguments reserves its decision on these two points which includes either show cause notices should be issued to judges and Military Generals or not, the application moved for amicus curia of all stakeholders of Judiciary in the prevailing case.