Writ against president’s authority over judges

A writ petition was filed yesterday with the High Court challenging the legality of Article 95 (1) and 116 of the Constitution, the two provisions that empowered the president to appoint SC judges and control the lower court judges. Advocate Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the petition with the related branch of the HC seeking its directive to declare Article 95 (1) and 116 of the Constitution illegal. After filing the petition, Akond told reporters that he would move before the High Court bench led by Justice Quazi-Reza-Ul Huq to hold a hearing on the petition next Sunday. The petition said that the Article 95 (2) of the Constitution has empowered the president to appoint SC judges in consultation with the chief justice and Article 116 has allowed the president to appoint lower court judges and to promote them and grant their leave. However, under Article 48 (3) of the Constitution, the president acts on advice from the prime minister and therefore, the president is not independent, the petition noted. The authority to appoint the SC judges and to control the lower court judges should be vested in the SC, under the Constitution and in line with the SC judgement in Masdar Hossain case, the petition added. Article 95(1) of the Constitution says, the chief justice shall be appointed by the president, and the other judges shall be appointed by the president after consultation with the chief justice. Article 116 of the Constitution says, the control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the president and shall be exercised by him in consultation with the Supreme Court.

Writ against presidents authority over judges

A writ petition was filed yesterday with the High Court challenging the legality of Article 95 (1) and 116 of the Constitution, the two provisions that empowered the president to appoint SC judges and control the lower court judges. Advocate Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the petition with the related branch of the HC seeking its directive to declare Article 95 (1) and 116 of the Constitution illegal. After filing the petition, Akond told reporters that he would move before the High Court bench led by Justice Quazi-Reza-Ul Huq to hold a hearing on the petition next Sunday. The petition said that the Article 95 (2) of the Constitution has empowered the president to appoint SC judges in consultation with the chief justice and Article 116 has allowed the president to appoint lower court judges and to promote them and grant their leave. However, under Article 48 (3) of the Constitution, the president acts on advice from the prime minister and therefore, the president is not independent, the petition noted. The authority to appoint the SC judges and to control the lower court judges should be vested in the SC, under the Constitution and in line with the SC judgement in Masdar Hossain case, the petition added. Article 95(1) of the Constitution says, the chief justice shall be appointed by the president, and the other judges shall be appointed by the president after consultation with the chief justice. Article 116 of the Constitution says, the control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the president and shall be exercised by him in consultation with the Supreme Court.