He said although he had great respect for his former colleagues (PCO judges), they could not be called judges without the approval of parliament, as it did not endorse even a single step what he called "martial law of November 3, 2007" in the country.
A seven-member larger bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani and Justice Amir Hani Muslim was hearing intra-court appeals of a number of dysfunctional and retired judges of superior judiciary, facing contempt charges for violating a restraining order of the apex court.
The bench directed Attorney General to inform the court about government's stance regarding PCO judges in the next hearing. "We appreciate the parliament as it did not validate even a single measure of November 3, 2007. It (parliament) must be credited for doing a wonderful job. This reflects that they (dysfunctional judges) are no more judges," he remarked.
He further said the apex court in its July 31, 2009 verdict had also made it "crystal clear" that all appointments of judges since November 3, 2007 as illegal and that they ceased to exist as judges with immediate effect. While responding to arguments advanced by SM Zafar, a counsel for Sayed Zahid Hussain, a dysfunctional judge of the apex court, chief justice said that Supreme Court, for the first time in the history of the country, through its July 31, 2009 verdict, had blocked "constitutional deviation."
"We have given our verdict on July 31, 2009...what we have decided, we mean it and we will implement it. We are speaking for the whole judiciary including the High Courts," he maintained. Referring to a review verdict of Supreme Court authored by Justice Javed Iqbal on January 26, 2010, over PCO judges, Justice Chaudhry said, his fellow judge had written: "It is the first instance of Supreme Court stating in a categorical, loud and abundantly clear manner that military interventions are illegal and will hardly find any colluder in future within judiciary."
The author of the verdict had further written that the impugned judgement provided much needed redress as it would render considerable help in blocking the way of adventurers and dictators to creep in easily by taking supra constitutional steps endorsed, supported and upheld under the garb of the principle of necessity in the past which would never happen again.
The verdict authored by Justice Javed Iqbal further says: "Had our superior judiciary followed the path of non-PCO judges, the course of Pakistan's political and judicial history would have been different".
When chief justice asked about the status of appellants after the passage of 18th Amendment, the counsel said, they were judges under Zafar Ali Shah case and till both the judgements by the restored judiciary. Justice Chaudhry asked: "when they were not judges, how could they be enjoying perks and privileges as they had already termed such facilities as 'ill gotten gains' in their relevant decisions."
They (PCO judges) had no legal right to hold offices of a judge after Iqbal Tikka Khan case was set aside as they were no more judges, he added. The chief justice said that benefits for PCO judges of either group (apologetic and unrepentant), are dubious. The 18th Amendment did not verify the oath of PCO judges and benefits given to all PCO judges (current and retired) could be taken back, as none would retain their posts after implementation of 18th Amendment, he maintained. The hearing was adjourned till March 7.