By Faisal Shakeel

The stage is set for another round of confrontation between parliament and the judiciary over the constitutionality of the newly-passed 18th Amendment.

While parliament is ecstatic over the changes it made, the Supreme Court Bar Association and a group of lawyers are visibly upset over certain changes in the amendment.

Parliament says it made the amendments to the constitution because it wanted to purge the document of changes introduced by Pervez Musharraf while president.

However, at least three petitions have been moved in the Supreme Court to declare amendments on the appointment of judges unconstitutional.

Debate over the changes, especially those regarding judicial appointments, has polarised the lawyers who once united to campaign for the restoration of the judges deposed by former president Musharraf.

The arguments coming from both sides suggest that tensions will mount once more after the judges take up the petitions for hearing.

The last tug-of-war between the Supreme Court and the government, over the appointments of judges, came to an end after Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani made a surprise appearance at a farewell reception that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry hosted for a retired judge.

The unexpected and surprising visit helped cool the rising temperature of the debate, with the chief justice reciprocating by accepting the prime minister’s invitation to meet him and discuss the issue.

Aitzaz Ahsan, a stalwart of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) who spearheaded the movement for the restoration of the judiciary, has said the Supreme Court would stir disaster if it declared the amendments to be unconstitutional.

Ahsan believes the judicial commission, which comprises the attorney general, the law minister, a lawyer and three judges as its members, would not dominate the chief justice’s recommendations for appointment of judges.

Ahsan, who may be seen as a traitor by his colleagues campaigning against the amendments, does have a point – after all, it is parliament which amends the constitution and lay down procedures. Why and how do you challenge what parliament decides?

Lawyers opposing the move say the amendment negates the basic structure of the constitution, which cannot be interfered with at any cost.

They argue that including the attorney general and the law minister in the judicial commission will allow the executive to exert undue influence in appointing judges.

The constitution of Pakistan speaks about the separation of powers, allowing every state institution to function independently and preventing them interfering in each other’s affairs.

The court should keep in mind parliament’s power to make amendments when deciding the petitions. A confrontation between judiciary and the parliament is likely to spell disaster for the state, which is already staggering under militancy and a shattered economy.

The court, following its restoration, has been seen to have exerted its authority in an unprecedented manner. It is in a state of finding its functions afresh after the people brought the judges, deposed by Musharraf, back to their duties.

Perhaps the judges are still adjusting to their new role and need time to realise they too do not enjoy unfettered powers.

The talk about who is supreme and who is not should be brought to an end with a realisation that the constitution, prescribing roles for every organ of the state, is supreme and should be adhered to in letter and spirit – and that parliament is sovereign and exercises its authority in the name of the people of Pakistan.

If parliament falters, the people will take care of it when they exercise their right to vote.