SC moved against delay in judges' appointment

ISLAMABAD Barrister Akram Sheikh on Tuesday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the procrastination of judges appointment in the superior judiciary.
The noted lawyer argued in the petition that the Government was delaying judges appointment deliberately. He requested the apex court to seek record regarding the Supreme Courts suggestions in this regard with the President and the Governors version on that matter.
The petition was filed under order XXV of the apex courts rules of 1980 read with Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. Federation has been made the party in the petition seeking early appointment of judges in the superior judiciary.
The petitioner also prayed that Supreme Court might direct the Federation to perform its constitutional duty by immediately appointing all the judges in superior judiciary. The court was also requested to interpret Article VI of the Constitution, besides its imposition on those who tried to breach it.
The petitioner, further, requested the SC to discover the real reasons behind the violation of the articles 177, 182 and 193, and also direct the respondent (Federation) to submit its reply before the apex court in this regard.
All the record of recommendations received from the judicial consultants has been presented before the court, he explained.
Sheikh also wrote in the petition that the Article 90 of the Constitution vests the President the executive authority of the Federation, who under the Article 48, except in cases where he is empowered by the Constitution to act in his own discretion, is always required to act on the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.
The respondent, despite its clear constitutional duty to make timely appointment of new judges in the higher judiciary, is dallying the appointments of the new judges, he alleged.
Articles 177, 182 and 193 of the Constitution place a duty on the Federation to ensure permanent existence and efficient functioning of judicial organ of the state and therefore failure to fulfil that duty with due seriousness and diligence is the most serious breach of Constitution, it was further argued in the petition.
Despite being fully aware of the fact that at least two of the high courts are functioning with less than half of their full strength and not following the recommendations sent by judicial consultants, the respondent may legally be charged for 'destroying or 'ruining the whole judicial organ of state, it was further noted in the petition.
The petitioner also pointed out that the respondents failure to meet its constitutional duty under articles 177, 182 and 193 and make timely appointments of the judges in the superior courts at the highest level envisaged by the constitutional scheme.
Finally, the petitioner said that it was not the function of ordinary civil courts of this country to enforce constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the people.