20000209

Image of judiciary

damaged by PCO: Ex-CJ

ISLAMABAD: Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, erstwhile Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order PCO, has contended that 'there is no doubt that the PCO is an extra-constitutional step and has had an adverse effect on the functioning of the superior courts'.

He said in an interview with 'The Herald' magazine "it is an attempt to curb the independence of the judiciary. It is now a testing time for the judges who took oath under the PCO. The judges who have taken oath under the PCO can uphold independence of the judiciary by taking decisions which might ultimately restore the image of the judiciary, presently damaged by the PCO".

According to him, the PCO has not only "hampered the smooth functioning of the judiciary but also affected the people who approach courts for redressal of their grievances. The entire system will be affected by it. Only time will tell how disastrous the PCO will prove. It has severely damaged the judiciary's image, which can only be restored through its (subsequent) performance. It is the only institution which can ensure good governance and if this institution is affected, anarchy will prevail in society," he warned.

Justice Siddiqui said that PCO of October 14, 1999 'reflects the same psyche as that of former military dictator Ziaul-Haq. Perhaps, the present military regime thinks that it will feel more secure after obtaining an oath of allegiance from the judges of the superior judiciary."

He said he was appointed by the military government in 1980 as a judge of Sindh High Court and took under the 1981 PCO "only because I was appointed by the then military regime. But once the Constitution was restored, and I took an oath to protect it, I refused to take a fresh oath this time around".

Asked to comment on the claim of legal circles that entertainment of petitions by the apex court challenging the present regime prompted the action to force judges to take oath under the PCO, the former chief justice explained that the Supreme Court admitted these petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, keeping in view the understanding reached between the judiciary and the regime.

"There was nothing in the petitions that could offend the regime to the extent that they enforce the PCO on the judges of the superior courts. In my opinion, nobody can be barred from filing a petition in the Supreme Court," he observed.ÑPPI