ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court warned on Saturday against “impugning the impartiality of judges” and called for avoiding “unwarranted and uncalled for comments” on the court’s judgments.
“This court always welcomes healthy, constructive and fair comments on the merits of the decisions in good faith and in temperate language, without impugning the integrity or impartiality of the judge and expects that unwarranted and uncalled for comments would be avoided because judgments are based on law and the Constitution,” the Supreme Court office said in a rare statement.
The unusual court reaction came in response to a controversial statement by Labour and Manpower Minister Syed Khursheed Shah. Although the statement was withdrawn by the federal government’s information wing, some private channels and a section of the press carried it.
The minister had reportedly accused the judiciary of overstepping its mandate and interfering in decision-making, citing verdicts on sugar prices and the promotion of civil servants from BPS-21 to 22 to corroborate his assertion.
“The Supreme Court is following the Constitution and has played its due role assigned to it by the Constitution and law,” the statement said, adding that the court was mandated to protect the right of citizens, provide them justice and save them from discrimination.
“The court will play its role without fear or favour in the interest of establishing adherence to the Constitution and maintenance of rule of law in society,” it said.
SUGAR PRICE
Referring to the fixing of sugar price, the court recalled that six separate civil petitions impugning the Sept 3, 2009, order of the Lahore High Court were filed in the Supreme Court — one on behalf of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association, one on behalf of Mecca Sugar Mills (Pvt), two on behalf of Sheikhoo Sugar Mills, one on behalf of the federal government and one on behalf of Abdul Quddus Mughal.
The LHC had passed the order to ensure the availability of sugar in the open market at Rs40 per kilogram. Therefore, the Supreme Court heard the case under its appellate jurisdiction and appointed a one-man commission — chairman of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) — to ascertain the cost of sugar and profit margin and submit a report after hearing all stakeholders.
The commission had submitted its report and the apex court directed the finance secretary to discuss the report with all chief secretaries to ensure that at least non-industrial consumers whose shares in demand was stated to be 30 per cent should get sugar at Rs40 per kg until final determination.
The finance secretary later informed the court that a meeting of all stakeholders was held to finalise supply and distribution of sugar to domestic consumers at Rs40 per kg and told the court about the decision taken in this regard.
The apex court noted that decisions had been made unanimously by all stakeholders, including the federal and provincial governments, mill owners and the representatives of growers.
The federal and provincial governments were required to facilitate the stakeholders to watch their interests and get benefit out of the same.
The mill owners, however, were free to start crushing of sugarcane subject to supply of 30 per cent of the total produce of sugar for general consumers and 70 per cent for commercial use or for generating funds.
This arrangement should continue without interruption, injustice or prejudice to anyone. Since the petition involved a number of questions which were required to be decided by the apex court, the decisions were treated to be interim arrangement to enable the mill owners to start the crushing of sugarcane and, also at the same time, ensure the supply of sugar at the agreed ratio of 30:70. These cases are still pending.
BUREAUCRATS’ PROMOTION
About the promotion case of bureaucrats, the court statement clarified that it had been taken up on petitions filed by Tariq Azizuddin, ambassador to Turkey, and others.
The petitioners said the government had promoted officers of different occupational groups, including the Foreign Service group, from grade-21 to 22 in violation of law, constitutional provision and principle of merit, seniority and fair play.
The case was taken up under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be cause the element of discrimination was alleged in the case.
The Supreme Court heard the case and during the proceedings it was observed that good governance was largely dependent upon the upright, honest and strong bureaucracy, particularly in written constitution wherein important role of implementation had been assigned to the bureaucracy.
“Civil service is the backbone of administration. The purity of administration to a large extent depends upon the purity of the services. Such purity can be obtained only if the promotions are made on merit in accordance with the law and Constitution, without favouritism or nepotism,” the court statement said.
Some prominent lawyers representing the applicants and the government and the attorney general argued the case and decided the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment