NA passes bill to increase number of IHC judges amid protest.

Byline: Iftikhar A. Khan

ISLAMABAD -- The National Assembly on Friday passed a bill to increase the sanctioned strength of Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges from seven to 10, including the chief justice, amidst protest by the opposition.

The house rejected the amendments proposed by the opposition. Former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi proposed an amendment to the bill to bound the judges to provide details of their assets for the last five years and the annual taxes paid by them.

Mr Abbasi said the opposition had dissented with the bill.

Opposition protests, asking govt to explain need for increasing number of judges

He asked the government to explain the need for increasing the number of judges of the IHC.

The Islamabad High Court (Amendment) Bill 2018 had been introduced in the National Assembly by Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Ali Mohammad Khan on Dec 21.

When the bill was taken up by the standing committee in its two meetings, opposition members opposed it, saying the reason given by the government for increasing the number of judges was 'insufficient.'

Established under the IHC Act 2010, the high court became functional in Jan 2011.

The bill's statement of objects and reasons says: 'The existing sanctioned strength of the judges of the IHC is six plus one chief justice as per section 3(1) of the aforesaid act.

'As intimated by the IHC, the present strength of judges compared to number of pending cases is not sufficient besides the institution of fresh cases which is increasing every year. It is, therefore, necessary to increase the strength of the judges of the IHC from seven to 10, including the chief justice, to overcome the difficulties of litigant public qua early disposal of long pending cases.'

The standing committee on law and justice after clearing the bill by a majority decision submitted its report to the house last week.

The report contained two 'notes of dissent' signed by seven opposition members belonging to PML-N, PPP and the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA).This showed that the 21-member committee passed the bill with a 12-7 vote.

The opposition members objected to the reason mentioned in the bill that the present strength of judges compared to the number of pending cases was not sufficient.

'If this was the case, then there was pendency in other courts as well. In the absence of judges to pending cases ratio compared with other high courts, the rationale could not be justified by the data given,' said one of the dissenting notes.

The opposition members complained in the committee meetings that the law ministry had provided 'inadequate information' to them about the pendency of cases.

They claimed that in one of the meetings 'it was agreed unanimously that additional information in particular the details of pendency of cases in other courts would be provided in the next meeting for the committee to compare it with courts and hence assess the need in the light of the information provided.'

However, they alleged that in the meeting held on Jan 15, 'no additional information was provided by the ministry in the absence of which we are unable to make an informed decision.

'We would also observe that the failure to provide timely and adequate information by the ministry of law indicates not only their incompetence but also unwillingness to share information. We are concerned about the lack of transparency in this regard,' said the dissenting note.

'It was only in the meeting, on questioning, that we learnt that out of the seven existing positions of judges only four were filled and three were vacant.'

The opposition members asked why additional seats were required when there were already three vacant seats and sought details on this as well.

They opposition lawmakers said they had recommended that if the number of seats was being increased, IHC being that first court of appeals for the federal government must include judges from the provincial courts so as to federalise the constitution of the court.

'However, the ministry did not agree to this important recommendation,' the opposition regretted, adding 'as the ministry was unable to give any date to justify its own rationale and was also not open to our suggestions to include judges from other provincial benches, we are left with no other option but to oppose the bill.'

The PTI has a simple majority in the National Assembly but will have to seek the opposition's support to get the bill sail through the Senate.

The dissenting notes carried the signatures of Syed Naveed Qamar, Dr Nafeesa Shah, Khawaja Saad Rafique, Rana Sanaullah, Usman Ibrahim, Syed Hussain Tariq and Aliya Kamran.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:	Dawn (Karachi, Pakistan)
Date:	Jan 26, 2019
Words:	873
Previous Article:	LWMC to charge fee.
Next Article:	Two Chinese nationals protest at IIA.