Islamabad:
The judges of the Supreme Court are not passive interpreters of the text, but are the custodians of freedom, equality and institutional independence.
“[The Supreme Court] It is the definitive tutor of fundamental rights and the final sentry against executive or legislative overrequals, “said a 15 -page sentence created by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and backed by Judge Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi, who is also a member of the Constitutional Bank.
According to the verdict, SC judges will act with integrity and courage, resist all invasions, external or internal, which threaten to erode the autonomy of the Judiciary or subvert the rule of law.
“Judges should not fall prey to the attractiveness of small benefits in the short term, whether of personal power or comfort that can accumulate if they speak the language of authority instead of the Constitution. Such benefits are illusory and transitory.
‘The true reward of a judge lies in preserving the dignity of the institution and the confidence of the people. It is also the solemn duty of the judges of this court to call, with moral clarity and institutional courage, those among their ranks that surrender to the power of the day at the expense of the constitutional principles.
“The criticism from the inside, when it is rooted in fidelity to the Constitution, is not disloyalty, it is the highest form of service to the judicial institution,” added the verdict.
The Bank of the Division led by Judge Shah dismissed a request presented by the Federal Public Service Commission that rejected the new appointment of a female official in the assistant teacher position (obstetrics and gynecology) just because he changed his home after marriage.
Highlighting the “real role” of the Supreme Court and its judges in the last two decision pages, Judge Shah pointed out that history is a watchful witness who does not remind those who accommodate power, but those who are resolved in defense of principles.
“The jurisprudential legacy of a judge is not based on the appeasement, but on the challenge of principles when the soul of justice is in danger.
Judge Shah declared that history will not absolve the judges who leave their constitutional duty; He will remember them not as justice dispensers, but as collaborators in injustice.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court is not simply a forum to resolve disputes; It is the constitutional conscience of the nation, in charge of producing progressive jurisprudence and principles that gives life to the Constitution and unites the distance between the law and the lived realities of the people.
“The court must remain alive to the aspirations in evolution of society and innovate new remedies to advance justice,” says the sentence.
The case
The court argued that a married woman retains the legal discretion, the election or the agency to adopt her husband’s domicile or retain his. In the present case, the defendant, by his own volition, chose to adopt his husband’s domicile, which is legally allowed.
“It is also important to keep in mind that allowing address change can also affect the transfer and seniority mechanism.
“It does not take into account antiquity undermines bureaucratic impartiality, violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and equality (article 4 and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and generates cynicism within the service. The erosion of seniority norms weakens administrative stability.
“Allowing changes subsequent to induction at home would not only undermine the quota system but also open pathways for manipulation, which allows people to change the provincial affiliation to obtain personal advantage, thus diluting the constitutional promise of provincial parity.
“The freezing of the domicile thus serves the broader constitutional purpose of federal harmony and administrative equity within the structure of the Civil Service of Pakistan,” he said.
The Court indicated that the claim of the additional attorney general that allowing the change of domicile of the defendant would destabilize the structure of the civil service would have been correct if the defendant remained in the same service structure. However, the “direct recruitment” of candidates in service implies new salary scales, different terms and a separate seniority list.
