- Chief Justice IHC Justice Athar Minallah will oversee promise to the recently designated judges
- Legal brotherhood from IHC, area bar expected to partake in vow taking ceremony
- Babar Sattar has spoken about issues identified with common freedoms, fights, and court decisions over the years
Two recently delegated extra adjudicators of Islamabad High Court are set to accept charge of their office in the wake of making vow on Wednesday.
Chief Justice IHC Justice Athar Minallah would direct the pledge to the recently selected appointed authorities — Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar.
The legitimate clique from IHC and the locale bar are required to take an interest in the vow taking ceremony.
The Ministry of Law and Justice, a day sooner, had given a notice in regards to the adjudicator’s arrangement of the appointed authorities for a year.
Sattar, Jahangiri nominated
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed had suggested the arrangement of Sattar and Jahangiri as extra judges.
Under Article 175-An of the Constitution, the commission suggests arrangement and affirmation of the adjudicators while the Parliamentary Committee on Appointment of Judges embraces these recommendations.
Who is Babar Sattar?
Advocate Babar Sattar has in the past spoken to the Supreme Court judge, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, when a ten-judge full court heard his appeal against the now-subdued official reference.
Read more: Prominent legal counselor Babar Sattar suggested for post of extra appointed authority at IHC
A presumed journalist, he has spoken about issues identified with common freedoms, fights, and court decisions over the years.
According to Salahuddin Ahmed, the leader of the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SCBA), Sattar “is one of the most qualified and upright advocates to be ever chosen for elevation as a judge”.
In an interview to the Newsline magazine, Sattar spoke about the power of the judiciary and the judges’ authorities. “There is a major discussion around the globe concerning what judges can do in courts.
“And the argument is that they have soft discretion and hard discretion, meaning thereby that they can interpret words and that they have slight discretion in interpreting words in a certain way,” he had told the publication.