The reappointment, or extension, of Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Justice Rehmat Hussain Jaffery as ad-hoc judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan has generated a very hot and antagonistic debate in the media and in the legal fraternity.

There are strong logic behind these objecting criticism against these adhoc appointments, and these are 1) newer faces and newer bloods should be given the opportunities to become judges, 2) Supreme Court should stand firm on its earlier judgment on contractual and irregular appointments, and 3) law should be equally applicable to all, and if over-aged government employees on contract should go home as per decision of Supreme Court then judges attaining superannuation should also go home. These are of course very strong logic, and there is no denying of any of these. So, those who are fiercely debating the extension/ad-hoc appointments of judges are very much right in every aspect.

Having said so, I would still like to request all to sit back and contemplate a little bit from a little different angle. Firstly, we must think and understand if judges can be equated with any other government and/or professional officials, when we know the open-secret that, the successful and knowledgeable people of legal fraternity prefer to remain in private legal practice rather than joining the judiciary.  Secondly, the knowledge and experience gained by well experienced judges or legal practitioners through passage of long time in job and practice cannot be normally thought to be available with new and relatively inexperienced people. The most notable difference between two sets of people, the judges and the government officials, are that there is constant inflow of more and more knowledgeable and trained people for the government and technical/professional jobs, but to get people for judiciary who are fit in all respect, particularly strong and independent minded people, is not a very easy thing, particularly from the commoners/justice seekers’ perspective

I, for one, do not at all understand why in the first place a judge should ever retire, until and unless he/she becomes naturally and physically indisposed to perform his/her duties normally. Judges, particularly in Pakistan where there is shortage of mindful judges, should be allowed to perform as judges as long as their mental capacity and health permits. For this, if any enactment is needed, then that should be done.

I know of a man, a senior executive of a corporation, who was wrongfully ousted from his job, and all his pays including his retirement benefits were wrongly impounded by his employer. He fought a long and arduous legal battle to at least get back his financial rights and his retirement benefits.  But when time had ultimately come for the judges to write verdict in his case (which he was expecting to be in his favour), the judges had retired. In their place a new bench was instituted. The new judges declared that, they would hear the case afresh before giving their verdict. What happened next, and when and what verdict was passed in the case of my friend I could never know. And also, who knows how many people in Pakistan are suffering in such situations in denial and deprivation of justice in time!

So, in my opinion, those who talk on such issues merely theoretically and academically may also give a little time and attention to practical issues, to the reality on the ground.

Those who conduct discussion programmes in today’s mushroom TV channels should ask Ms. Asma Jehangir, Mr. Aitezaz Ahsan, Mr. Akram Shekh, Mr. Naeem Bukhari et al if they would become judges if given the opportunity. Only those who have very little share of market practices normally accept the government’s offer of becoming judges. There are of course very rare exceptions, very few handfuls of people who become judges only for the sake of name and prestige by leaving their practices.