Our Staff Reporter KARACHI - Sindh High Court on Tuesday issued notice to federal law ministry and attorney general seeking explanation over inclusion of the governments representatives in the judicial commission. A division bench headed by CJ Mushir Alam was hearing a constitutional petition filed by Syed Iqbal Kazmi, representative of Human Rights Commission for South Asia (HRCSA), challenging the inclusion of law minister and attorney general of Pakistan in the judicial commission formed to appoint judges in the apex courts. The court issued directive to the respondents to submit their comments in the next hearing to be fixed later. Earlier, the bench has heard preliminary arguments from the petitioner. Terming the inclusion of the government representatives in the judicial commission as unconstitutional, the petitioner submitted that it is violating with article 175 (3). According to the constitution, the judiciary is an independent institution and it has constitutional rights to run its affairs independently, and without interference from any other institution submitted the petitioner. The plaintiff stated that the Law Minister and Attorney General are parts of the administration not the judiciary; they should not be given representation in the commission to appoint judges. He stated that the formation of the current judicial commission is disputed and violation of the constitutional, as article 175 (A) included through 18th amendment Act 2010 in the constitution that clashes with article 175 (3) over appointment of the judges. The plaintiff submitted that a full bench should be constituted to precede the petition to reach a conclusion and resolve disputes in constitutional way. He added that all the institutions are constitutionally bound functioning under the constitution, and no institution and individual is above the constitution. The petitioner stated that according to constitution no new article could be added that clash with another article. However, if there is a need to promulgate a new clause but that clash with another clause, so the disputed clause must be amended through legislation. The judiciary is entitled to declare any clause as disputed that clash with already existing article, the petitioner stated, adding that such example has been witnessed in the past in different occasions. The federal law minister and attorney general were cited as respondents. The petitioner pleaded to declare the inclusion of Law Minister and Attorney General in the judicial commission as illegal and unconstitutional. It was also prayed that the newly promulgated article 175 (A) be declared as controversial.