The Provisional Constitutional Order Judges case, refers to cases heard and decided by the Pakistan Supreme Court pertaining to the High Court and Supreme Court judges who took their oath of offices under the Provisional Constitutional Order in 2007. On 3 November 2007, then-President Pervez Musharraf declared a Provisional Constitutional Order, which declared a state of emergency and suspends the Constitution of Pakistan. Under this emergency law, all High court judges, including the Supreme Court justices, were asked to take oath under this Provisional Constitutional Order. Those who didn't were placed under effective house arrest. A seven-member bench issued a restraining order on the same day, barring the government from implementing emergency rule and urging other government officials to not help do so. The Provisional Constitutional Order Judges case has been examining the constitutionality and legality of the steps taken by Musharraf in declaring a state of emergency, and considering contempt of court charges against justices who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order in violation of the restraining order.
Background
On 3 November 2007, Musharraf declared a Provisional Constitutional Order, which suspended the Constitution of Pakistan and declared a state of emergency. High court judges were asked to take oath under the new Provisional Court Order. Approximately 100 judges refused to take this oath, and were placed under house arrest. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of these judges. He was dismissed and replaced by Chief Justice Dogar. On 3 November 2007, a restraining order was issued by a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court to bar the government from implementing emergency rule. In a statement smuggled out of Chaudhry's residence, Chaudry said: Dogar almost immediately declared void Chaudry's ruling that the emergency state and Provisional Constitutional Order were unconstitutional.
Justices Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon and Anwarul Haq Pannun filed petitions to review the 31 July 2009 verdict. The two justices' complaints included:
They had not been heard before being condemned
They had taken oath, but did not take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order.
Dogar had taken oath, along with four other judges, which violated the 3 November 2007 restraining order
This violation made both his appointment and all appointments by his recommendation unconstitutional
Dogar had taken oath as Chief Justice while another Chief Justice was in office
The decision was retroactive to the 3 November 2007 Provisional Constitutional Order, but not to that of the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état
There were those who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order who were not being prosecuted
The judgement didn't follow Article 209 of the Constitution, which says that judges must refrain from deciding cases involving their own interests
The oath administered by Dogar to President Zardari should not be considered to be valid if the oaths administered to other judges are not
After the 31 July decision, contempt of court notices were issued to the judges who took the Provisional Constitutional Order oath. On 9 November 2010, a four-member Supreme Court bench took up the contempt of court charges against the nine justices who have not apologised for taking the oath. Although these judges petitioned the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions and will go on with the contempt of court proceedings. Objections to the composition of the bench were raised by Justice Abdul Baist against the presence of Justices Sair Ali, Tariq Pervez, and Shahid Siddiqui. Following these objections, Ali refused to be part of the bench and requested Chaudhry create a new bench to hear the case. On 11 December 2010, Dogar also challenged the bench presiding over the case, on the grounds that two of the judges making up the bench had been appointed per his recommendation. However, this challenge was rejected. On 3 March 2011, Dogar and Zahid Hussain apologised to the Supreme Court. Chaudhry accepted their apologies. The Supreme Court has asked Attorney General Maulvi Anwar ul Haq to provide a statement on behalf of the government detailing the legal status of the judges who took the oath. The Supreme Court has supposedly also issued contempt of court notices to Musharraf, former premierShaukat Aziz, the former corpscommanders, and the current Chief of Army StaffAshfaq Parvez Kayani. However, this has been denied by Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan president Asma Jahangir. She blames this mistake on the media for misinterpreting the Court's decision.
Decisions
31 July 2009
On 31 July 2009, after hearing constitutional petitions concerning PCO judges, the appointment of judges, and the steps taken in declaring the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency, the Pakistan Supreme Court decided the declaration of emergency rule by Musharraf to be unconstitutional under Article 279 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court also declared the steps taken in declaring the state of emergency to be null and void, and specifically stated that the removal of judges was unconstitutional and illegal. This included the removal from office of the Chaudhry and other justices. The appointment of Dogar and of all justices between 3 November 2007 and 24 March 2008 was deemed unconstitutional. Musharraf's increase to the number of justices, accomplished through a finance bill, was declared unconstitutional, and the number of justices was set at seventeen. The verdict did not change the legality of the new government, nor that of the presidential oath taken by Zardari. The verdict also referred the issue of the Provisional Constitutional Order judges to the Supreme Judicial Council.
Reaction
31 July 2009 verdict
The 31 July 2009 verdict was warmly received outside of the Supreme Court and across Pakistan. Candy was distributed after the announcement, and people were chanting slogans in support of the decision. The verdict was also welcomed by the spokesperson to Zardari, Farhatullah Babar, who said that "The Supreme Court short order today declaring the November 3, 2007 actions of General Pervez Musharraf as unconstitutional is a triumph of the democratic principles, a stinging negation of dictatorship and is most welcome." Jahangir, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, spoke out strongly against the issuance of contempt of court notices to the judges, saying that the Supreme Judicial Council, not the Supreme Court, should not be hearing the case. Jahangir was subsequently asked by the Supreme Court Bar Association to keep from issuing statements on the matter, and to not suggest that her personal opinion reflected the opinion of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
