- Barrister Aqeel rejects claims of attack on judiciary.
- Says resignations came after Parliament used its authority
- 27th Amendment to enhance judicial structure, says Aqeel.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-led federal government on Thursday snapped back at the two Supreme Court judges who have stepped down, calling their allegations unconstitutional and resignations “political speeches”.
SC’s senior puisne judge Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah have tendered their resignations, saying they cannot serve after the passing of the 27th Constitutional Amendment.
“By fracturing the unity of the nation’s apex court, it has crippled judicial independence and integrity, pushing the country back by decades,” Shah wrote in his resignation.
Speaking to the media, Rana Sanaullah, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Political Affairs, called the judges respectable, but claimed that the senior jurists were pursuing a “political” and “self-serving” agenda.
“The contents of the resigned judges’ letters are political. Both the judges, in their letters, could not point out a single thing in the 27th Amendment which could be termed an attack on the Constitution,” Sanaullah, who is also a lawyer, said.
Sanaullah, taking a step further, called Shah and Minallah “political judges” and said it is unbecoming for these people to hold such prestigious positions. He recalled that several decisions were decided on 8-7 basis, blaming the judges who resigned.
While he mentioned that it was up to President Asif Ali Zardari to decide their fate, Sanaullah demanded that the judges should have also elaborated on how the Supreme Court was fractured.
Separately, Minister of State for Law and Justice Barrister Aqeel Malik said that the letters written by two Supreme Court judges are “unconstitutional”, saying that Parliament’s authority to legislate and amend the Constitution cannot be questioned.
In a statement, Barrister Aqeel said that judges have every right to resign, but calling the 27th Constitutional Amendment an “attack on the judiciary” was entirely incorrect and unconstitutional.
“If they had any grievance, they could have spoken to the chief justice,” he said. “There was correspondence earlier, but when Parliament exercised its constitutional right, the resignations followed.”
He noted that such resignations could “be termed unconstitutional acts in several respects.” However, he maintained that there was no clash among institutions, saying: “I don’t think there is any conflict or fight between institutions.”
Barrister Aqeel stressed that Parliament has the privilege to enact laws and amend the Constitution, as “the boundaries between institutions are already clearly defined.”
He further said that the Supreme Court itself was formed under the same Constitution, and that no amendment can be viewed as being directed against any institution.
“Even laws concerning the Supreme Court are legislated by Parliament,” he said, adding that the 27th Amendment would bring further improvement in the judicial system.
The minister underscored that the Constitution allows amendments, and that such legislative actions cannot be challenged in any court.
He also criticised the political use of courts, calling it “regrettable.” “Political games were played in the courts, which was unfortunate. Decisions should be made according to law and justice, not personal interests,” he said.
