A Supreme Court lawyer yesterday filed a writ petition with the High Court, for the second time, challenging the legality of the 16th amendment to the constitution.
Petitioner Eunus Ali Akond urged the court to issue a rule upon the government seeking explanation as to why the amendment that restored parliament’s authority to impeach the apex court judges for misconduct and incapability should not be declared illegal.
He also sought postponement of the effectiveness of the amendment until the petition was disposed of. He also requested the court to direct the government to cancel the amendment.
The secretaries of the Cabinet Division, Law Ministry, Parliament Secretariat and the Chief Election Commissioner were made respondents.
Eunus on July 20 filed another petition with the High Court to stop process of the amendment saying “if the parliament gets back the impeachment authority, the judiciary cannot function independently.”
But the High Court on August 21 declined to hear the petition terming it “premature” since the bill was not placed in parliament until then.
Parliament passed the bill on September 17 while President Abdul Hamid gave his consent on September 22.
In the petition, Eunus said: “According to section 66 of the constitution, no specific academic qualification is fixed to hold the position of MPs.
“But as per section 95, a lawyer or a district judge needs 10 years’ experience to become a Supreme Court judge. So how do they [MPs] exercise the authority to impeach judges?”
According to the rules of precedence, the judges are in higher rank than the parliament members, he says. “There is no strong opposition party in parliament. The amendment passed without any ‘no vote.’ So how can it be expected that it will pass a neutral opinion in any case?”
