As per Aritcle 177 is concerned it says that the chief justice is appointed by the President and rest of the judges after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan.
Now what we have to see is the point whether it is compulsary on the President to act upon the advice of CJ or not.
and whether there is any compulsion that the judge's chosen must b only on the basis of seniority.


According to me CJ advice is given a lot of importance. He is in the buisness he knows better then anyone who is much capable.
Our constitution maker knew this point and that is the reason why it has been made compulsary to consult CJ in apponting othr judges.

All the Suo Motto Actions taken by Chief Justice were purely for the batterment fo people of Pakistan.


Our Constitution is based on such system that Judiciary, legislative and Executive can check each others functions.


In these conditions i think the President action was useless and he should not have interfered as the law system was improving

We have been driven by the emotional attacks of media, and judiciary. Judiciary has emerged as a rivalry force in the current arena so is the case with our frustrated media. Judiciary and media both are inviting another army general to take the reins of this state.

With due respect I want to raise a question:

1) Who will interprete the constitution ?

You, me, media or Supreme Court ??

Here is the SC order with interpretation of Article 177 of the constitution of Pakistan.

"Article 177 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after
consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Additional Registrar stated that according to the record of this Court no consultation had taken
place by the President with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan regarding the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Chief Justice of
the Lahore High Court as Judge of the Supreme Court. In the light of the statement of Additional Registrar and also the note submitted by him and
placed on the file of Constitution Petitions No.2,3 and 4 of 2010 relating to the same/almost the same matter, already pending before this Court in which
notices had been issued and a larger Bench constituted for 18-2-2010, the notification of the appointment of Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif as
a Judge of the Supreme Court, prima facie, appears to have been issued in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly, Article 177, hence
the same is suspended subject to notice to the Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division, the Attorney General
for Pakistan and the learned Advocate General Punjab. Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif shall continue to perform his duties as Chief
Justice of the Lahore High Court until further orders of this Court. No steps to administer oath to him will be taken."

You may find the full press release of this order from here

http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/pr/Pr...2-13-02-10.pdf

Please don't take this interpretation negative as it s an evolutionary process of system. Every institute is going towards maturity so be optimistic and don't percept like media (as they are on other extreme)

If this interpretation seems to be wrong then there is a constitutional way to clarify and draft it as Federation wants by putting the issue in parliament.

H'ble CJ and H'ble President, both, are Federation symbols so we should avoid to comment in such a rude and negative manner.

Kind Regards

__________________
You cannot hate a person when you know him

One is stubborn,the other is egoistic.Don't know what will happen of Pakistan?Its about time the government should seriously start thinking of reining the Chief Justice as he's becoming a serious nuisance to the whole system.Whatever the President did was correct so all those people who are blaming him are doing the country no good.

__________________
Bringing rhymes back to the strings of my life.....

سفارش 'عدولی' کا حق
انور سِن رائے | 2010-02-14 ،19:42

اگرچہ ابھی یہ واضح نہیں ہے کہ پاکستان کے چیف جسٹس صاحب، لاہور ہائی کورٹ اور سپریم کورٹ میں تقرریاں روایت کے برخلاف کیوں چاہتے ہیں اور حکومت یا صدر کو ان کی اِس 'سفارش' کی تعمیل میں کیا خرابی دکھائی دیتی ہے۔

لیکن جناب چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری نے حکومت کی جانب سے ججوں کی تقرری کے معاملے کا از خود نوٹس لیتے ہوئے ایک تین رکنی بینچ تشکیل دیا جس نے 'سرسری سماعت' کرتے ہوئے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے سربراہ جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو سپریم کورٹ کا جج اور جسٹس ثاقب نثار کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا قائم مقام چیف جسٹس مقرر کرنے کا صدارتی حکم معطل کر دیا ہے۔

کہا جاتا ہے کہ صدر نے چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان کی سفارش 'عدولی' کی ہے اور ان کی خواہش کا احترام نہیں کیا۔ جب کہ پاکستان کے وزیر اطلاعات قمر الزمان کائرہ نے دعویٰ کرتے ہیں کہ ججوں کی تقرری کے بارے میں حکومت کے پاس چیف جسٹس کی تحریری مشاورت موجود ہے اور صدر نے جو بھی حکم جاری کیا ہے وہ آئین اور قانون کے مطابق ہے۔

انہوں نے بی بی سی سے فون پر بات کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ کہ 'چیف جسٹس کے ساتھ خط و کتابت میں جو مشاورت ہوئی ہے وہ ریکارڈ پر موجود ہے'۔

انہوں نے بتایا کہ پہلے چیف جسٹس نے اپنی سفارشات صدر کو بھیجیں اور صدر نے انہیں اپنی آرا کے ساتھ واپس بھیجا اور اس کے بعد چیف جسٹس نے جو دوبارہ اپنی رائے دی اس پر صدرِ مملکت نے آئین کے تحت اپنے اختیارات کا استعمال کرتے ہوئے فیصلہ دیا اور وزارت قانون نے نوٹیفکیشن جاری کیا۔

حالات اور دونوں ججوں کے پس منظر دیکھ کر میاں نواز شریف صاحب کی تندی و تیزی بھی سمجھ میں آتی ہے اور لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے قائم مقام چیف جسٹس کا حلف اٹھانے سے خود جسٹس ثاقب نثار کا انکار اور یہ کہنا بھی کہ 'وہ وہی کریں گے جو چیف صاحب کہیں گے'۔

کیسی افسوسناک بات ہے کہ جناب چیف جسٹس افتخار چوہدری خود اپنے ہی لوگوں کے سامنے مدعی بھی بننا پڑ رہا ہے۔ اب اگر چیف جسٹس صاحب اپنی سفارش پر عمل نہ کیے جانے کا نوٹس خود بھی نہ لیں گے تو کون لے گا اس لیے انہوں نے کسی کو بھی اس تکلیف میں نہیں ڈالا ۔ خود ہی نوٹس لیا اور خود ہی بینچ بنایا۔ جس نے وہی کیا جس کے لیے اسے بنایا گیا تھا یعنی آتے ہی فیصلہ معطل کر دیا۔ اسے کہتے ہیں انصاف، بلکہ تیز ترین انصاف۔ خرابی اس میں صرف یہ ہے کہ جیسے کتے کے کاٹے پانی سے ڈرتے مجھے بھی اس میں ضیاالحق کے بو آتی ہے۔ اگر آپ اپنی سفارش پر عمل نہ کیے جانے پر کارروائی کرتے ہوئے خود ہی نوٹس لیں گے اور خود ہی بنچ بنائیں گے تو اس کا مطلب اس کے سوا کیا ہو گا: کہ آپ مدعی بھی ہیں اور منصف بھی۔

ساری دنیا جانتی ہے یہ طریقہ جنرل ضیاالحق کے دور سے ہی نہیں، ہر مارشل لا دور کی شناخت رہا ہے بلکہ ہر آمریت کی ہے۔ عراق کی مثال ہمارے سامنے ہے جہاں امریکہ جوتوں سمیت آنکھوں میں گھس گیا اور کوئی کچھ نہیں کر سکا۔

بہت سے پاکستانی یقیناً چاہتے ہوں گے جو برا بیت گیا ہے اس کی یاد نہ دلائی جائے۔ سپریم کورٹ کو کام کرنے کے لیے جج چاہیں تو دونوں جج حضرات ایسے ہیں کہ انہیں کوئی بھی ذمہ داری سونپی جا سکتی ہے۔ یعنی اس سے کوئی فرق نہیں پڑے گا اگر خواجہ شریف سپریم کورٹ آ جائیں گے یا جسٹس نثار۔

اگر چیف جسٹس یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ جسٹس خواجہ شریف سپریم کورٹ میں آنے کے اہل نہیں ہیں اور جسٹس ثاقب زیادہ اہل ہیں تو یہ بات حکومت کو بھی سمجھا دیتے اتنا ہنگامہ کھڑا کرنے کی کیا ضرورت تھی اور ہمارے خیال میں تو آئین میں مشاورت کی شق کا مطلب بھی شاید یہی ہے۔

اگر یہ بھی پسند نہیں تو کوئی اور رستہ ڈھونڈ لیں لیکن ضیا الحق اور بش کا طرزِ عمل نہ اپنائیں۔

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/urdu/2010/02/post_593.html

__________________
"The only necessary thing for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

babar sattar(lawyer and columnist) tried to analys this situation and comment on it dear members

ISLAMABAD: It is hard to fathom what could possibly possess the Zardari government to reject the summary of judicial appointments proposed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and engage in a legal misadventure that is certain to have perilous consequences for the ruling party. The legal issues underlying the current controversy are not intricate and in view of clear and binding rulings of the Supreme Court it is hard to misunderstand the dictates of the law as it stands today in relation to judicial appointments.

The merit (or lack thereof) of notifications issued by President Zardari elevating Chief Justice Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and appointing Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as acting Chief Justice Lahore High Court rests on three related issues: one, the mandated consultation process under Article 177of the Constitution in making judicial appointments; two, the principle of seniority and whether or not it applies to judges being elevated from high courts to the Supreme Court; and three, which institution or office has been endowed with the responsibility to interpret the law and the Constitution.

The first issue has been elucidated by the famous Judges’ case (Al Jihad Trust Case, PLD 1996 SC 324), which is being quoted ad nauseam and out of context by spokespersons and proponents of the ruling regime. This case ruled that in making judicial appointments to the superior judiciary the consultation between the president and the chief justice, under Article 177(1) of the Constitution, must be meaningful and purposive. Meaningful consultation was interpreted to mean that the advice of the chief justice is binding on the government, unless the government has valid reasons for disagreeing with such advice. And such reasons must be recorded in writing and communicated to the chief justice. The recorded reasons for such disagreement would then be justiciable i.e it would be for the Supreme Court to determine whether or not such reasons have merit.

In short, on the issue of appointing judges to the Supreme Court, the chief justice of Pakistan has discretion that is akin to a soft veto. And it is ultimately for the Supreme Court to determine whether the chief justice is exercising such authority and veto in an unreasonable manner. In the present case, the president, on advice of the prime minister, refused to abide by the advice given by the chief justice. The notifications for judicial appointments are not in accordance with the requirements of consultation laid out in Article 177, as interpreted by the Judges’ Case.

They have consequently been suspended by the Supreme Court, in view of its preliminary inquiry, which revealed that such notifications have been issued contrary to the advice of the chief justice. The Supreme Court has fixed the matter for hearing before a five-member bench for February 18th. As any decision of the president in disregard of the advice of the chief justice is justiciable according to the Judges’ Case, the apex court will now determine whether or not the notifications issued by the president were legal.

The second issue (that of seniority) is equally straightforward. The Judges’ Case entrenched the principle that judges’ of the high courts have a legitimate expectancy to be elevated as chief justices of their respective courts in accordance with the seniority list, and the practice of appointing ad hoc judges and acting chief justices in breach of the principle of seniority must be curbed. The Supreme Court further elaborated the principle of seniority in Malik Asad Ali case (PLD 1998 SC 161), when it held the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan must also be in accordance with the principle of seniority.

The issue of seniority once again came before the court in the Supreme Court Bar Association Case (PLD 2002 SC 939). Here the SCBA, Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum and Watan Party had challenged the appointments of three judges of the Lahore High Court who had been elevated to the Supreme Court not in accordance with the seniority principle. A five-member bench of the apex court emphatically dismissed the petitions and ruled that the principles of seniority and legitimate expectancy did not apply to appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, and instead the principles applicable to such appointments were those of ‘suitability and fitness’.

In making its ruling the Supreme Court explained that the Article 177(2)(a) did not contemplate that the senior most high court judges are to be elevated to the Supreme Court. They drew a comparison with Article 180 that lays down the mechanism for appointment of an acting chief justice and explicitly refers to the principle of seniority in making such appointment. Apart from the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court also explained that the appointment of a high court judge to the Supreme Court was not a promotion but a new appointment. Thus, it was suitability and fitness for such appointment that would trump any consideration of seniority.

Leaving law aside, it can also be argued from a functional perspective that excelling as a judge of the high court or a judge of the Supreme Court in comparison to being a chief justice is contingent upon different skill-sets. An extraordinary legal mind and dexterous judge might not have comparable administrative skills or the inclination to be a chief justice. Likewise, a judge might attain the right to be the chief justice of a high court by virtue of the seniority principle, but still remain unsuitable for being elevated to the apex court and contribute to binding judicial precedents for the entire country.

As a matter of opinion one can disagree with the decision and policy of the Supreme Court when it refused in 2002 to apply the principle of seniority to judicial appointments to be made to the Supreme Court. One can wonder why Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry exercised his discretion in favour of elevating the second senior-most judge of the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court instead of the chief justice. But as for the law is concerned, it doesn’t require the chief justice of Pakistan to record reasons in support of the manner in which he exercises discretion, nor it doesn’t apply the principle of seniority in case of elevation of judges from high courts to the Supreme Court, and it does require the government to adhere to the recommendations of the chief justice. This much is unambiguous.

One can logically argue that the present system leaves too much discretion with the chief justice in determining who gets to become the chief justice of a province and who comes to the Supreme Court. That consequently one individual has excessive authority to determine the composition of the Supreme Court and the administrative heads of the high courts, which is unhealthy. But any reform on improving the mechanism for judicial appointments must be accomplished by amending the law and not by defying it. If it can muster the requisite parliamentary support, the government can transform the system of judicial appointment in accordance with the Charter of Democracy or alternatively distribute the power to make such recommendations more widely amongst a panel of senior judges of the Supreme Court.

The third issue is even simpler. Under the Constitution it is the judicature that interprets the meaning of the Constitution and judicial precedents and not the Executive. It is almost comical that despite the existence of the aforesaid binding and unequivocal judicial pronouncements, the Zardari regime and its proponents continue to insist that they are the ones applying the law and the Constitution in letter and spirit. It is thus foolhardy to lock horns with the judiciary over the issue of judicial appointments, when under the scheme of the Constitution it is for the apex court to determine what the Constitution means, what their previous rulings mean and how judges are to be appointed.

This blunder on part of the Zardari-regime is not just about inflated egos, bad advice or a turf war between the judiciary and an executive that has habitually encroached upon judicial domain. This is another misconceived attempt to determine the composition of the court as a means to influence future judicial decisions. And that is what makes the issue of delaying appointment of judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court in accordance with the recommendations of the judicature fundamentally invidious. Such moves militate against the very concept of independence of judiciary and must be resisted by everyone who has a stake in upholding rule of law in Pakistan.

The CJP is playing havoc with the future of Pakistan. Supreme court never worked on a holiday if the matter invovled a common man. Where were the courts on the evening of October 12, 1999? Where were the courts on the night of July 5, 1977? Chief Justice himself was part of the bench that validated Musharraf coup in 1999. How can supreme court give power to amend the constitution to an individual when it can't amend the constitution itself? President has done all the right things. Judges must be appointed on merit. Senior most judge must go to Supreme court. When Prime Minister made promotions in bureaucracy against seniority principle, then supreme court took action, now that the president has acted according to seniority principle then the supreme court has been annoyed. Cheif Justice must resign and do some other work.

__________________
CSS 2009, 2010, 2011 Qualifier

@shallow water
dnt be agressive dear in commenting to that person who is most popular person of pakistan..88% popularity in recent surveys....CJP has support of people of pakistan....so care while commenting on this very critical issue.....you are educated person,you should be example in attitude and you ARE going to become a csp officer in coming days inshaALLAH so tight your nerve my dear....! ! !

I strongly back atleast this point. If it is solely CJ's prerogative to appoint supreme court judges (with President to act as a mere docile body) then why PM's decission of promotion to bureaucracy was much criticized in Judiciary and in so-called free and revolutionary media. Constitution gives PM authority to do so.

We must set the rules straight.

It does not mean that if courts have done wrong in the past,they should continue this practice forever.political culture of the nation is changing and it is always a healthy sign.To interpret constitution is the duty of SC.Supreme Court is the custodian of constitution.constitutionally it is binding on the president to act upon the advice of CJP while appointing supreme court judges.Constitution has not provided that judges should be appointed on seniority basis.To be a judge of supreme court one needs certain qualifications and these qualifications do not include seniority.matter of fact is that Zardari wants to get rid of Khawja sharif from LHC so that he can appoint JIALY in LHC.

To declare NRO null and void is not a havoc.To order bring back nation's louted wealth from swiss accounts is not a havoc.To hear the case of missing persons is not a havoc in my humble perception.

Rule of law should prevail.each and every provision of constitution should be protected.if someone does not like some specific provision then he/she should go the parliament and get the constitution amended according to one's desires.

__________________
The color of blood in my veins is green,I am a proud Pakistani.