Return on PPP's terms

As to the reappointment of Sindh judges, or for that matter others is concerned, in view of the jurists, it has its own dimensions. In their view, the Constitution provides for appointment of the judges and its mode but not re-appointment of a judge or providing him the original seniority. After removal of a judge, he can be given a fresh appointment but not reappointment with the original seniority. Had there been a constitutional amendment, as it was sought by the PPP in the past to reinstate the judges, the matter was easily understandable. And now the question is how the authorities would assimilate the re-appointment with the original seniority, in the constitutional scheme of things when a judge holds a constitutional post and acts to advance the constitutional scheme of things, the jurists posed.

In their view, the government much orchestrated the constitutional package for judges restoration but now it is obvious that it was a means to avoid implementation of the Murree declaration and to buy time against the PML(N) pressure to carry forward what the PPP had planned when the fact was, the compulsory two-thirds majority in the Parliament was never available to the coalition partners. And for the fresh, they say, the government may need to resort to some legislation to blend re-appointment with the constitutional provisions.   

Another important point relates to the necessary consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the appointment of a judge. The present incumbent in the office is Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar. The re-appointment of deposed judges and fresh oath by them after consultation with Chief Justice Dogar, experts say, the position of Justice Dogar in the office and PCO which had appointed him, has also been established. This, they opine, has more squeezed the space for Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to come back to the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The lawyers are adamant on continuing the struggle and the future picture, as an observer says, is like that which emerged after March 9,2007 when Justice Chaudhry was sacked unconstitutionally by General Musharraf. The movement, if not suppressed by the government, would again be rallied round Justice Chaudhry. The situation would be back to the square one, however with a difference that this time round more deposed judges would stand by him unlike his solitary stay in the field after March 9 incident. And the struggle would not be against a ‘dictator’ but a democratic government which has held tall claims on living up to the public aspirations.

Observers say lawyers strongly believe that genesis of November 3 action lies in March 9 incident founded on one ‘no’ of Justice Chaudhry to General Musharraf when he was most powerful, calling the shots everywhere. They still stand with him and are ready to move with him for the rule of law and independence of the judiciary, say the senior lawyers.