ISLAMABAD: The legal fraternity of Balochistan has expressed concern over the hearing of a petition against the appointment of Justice Qazi Faez Isa as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court and his elevation to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The Balochistan Bar Council is not only pondering over passing a resolution to express displeasure over the grant of permission to hear Advocate Riaz Rahi’s petition against the appointment of Justice Isa — the only judge who represents Balochistan in the 17-judge Supreme Court — but is also planning to call an All Representatives Conference of Bar Associations (ARCBA) on the issue.
Vice Chairman of the Balochistan Bar Council Haji Ataullah Langove said Justice Isa did an excellent job by highlighting weaknesses of different quarters while leading a one-man inquiry commission to probe the Aug 8, 2016 Quetta carnage in which at least 74 people including lawyers lost their lives.
He said the bar council was likely to adopt a resolution expressing displeasure over the move against the outspoken judge. He said a decision could also be taken to finalise the date for holding the ARCBA in this regard.
The decision of passing the resolution was also supported by Munir Kakar, a bar member who also represents the Balochistan Bar Council in the Judicial Commission of Pakistan.“Why questions are being raised on the appointment of Justice Isa even after he had served as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court for three years and is now working as a judge of the Supreme Court?” wondered the senior member of the Balochistan bar council.
On March 13, Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar during a chamber hearing overruled an objection raised by the Supreme Court registrar on the petition of Advocate Rahi last year with a direction to number the same and fix it before a Supreme Court bench to decide the maintainability of the petition. The office in its objection had stated that the petition prima facie appeared to be frivolous within the contemplation of Order 27, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
Moreover, the petition does not seek enforcement of any fundamental rights while moving the petition under Article 194(3) of the Constitution.