In a recent interview with a private television channel, Federal Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar expressed his support for the appointment of ad hoc judges through the Judicial Commission, noting that this process should not be carried out solely by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). Minister Tarar emphasized the need for constitutional amendments to enhance the judicial system, indicating his willingness to pursue legislative reforms in this regard.
Moreover, Minister Tarar addressed the circulating rumors about the extension of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s tenure, debunking them as false. He disclosed that a meeting with the CJP had taken place, during which the possibility of tenure extension was discussed. However, Chief Justice Isa purportedly conveyed his lack of interest in such an extension. Furthermore, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah reportedly supported the idea of extending the CJP’s tenure, highlighting Parliament’s authority to effect this change.
Minister Tarar also shed light on the issue of escalating pension expenditure, attributing it to debates surrounding the extension of government employees’ tenures. He cited the increasing retirement age of government employees globally and proposed that Parliament holds the power to amend the constitution in this regard.
Pl subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
The law minister also commented on a recent Supreme Court decision that impacted his political party, noting that the ruling had presented an opportunity for his party’s strengthening. Additionally, he addressed the matter of potentially invoking Article 6 against leaders of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Minister Tarar argued that PTI had violated the constitution by dissolving assemblies in the midst of a pending no-confidence motion, suggesting a legitimate case for imposing Article 6 on PTI leaders.
Lastly, Minister Tarar emphasized that the decision not to ban PTI last year was aimed at preserving the political environment. He indicated that the court’s acknowledgment of PTI’s unconstitutional actions could lead to parliamentary debates on the application of Article 6 and the consequences of the party’s actions.
