Justice Rozi Khan and Justice Arshad Hussain Shah took oath as judges of the Federal Constitutional Court in a simple yet significant ceremony held at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday.
With the induction of two judges, the strength of the Federal Constitutional Court has risen to seven.
The oath-taking ceremony was held in the IHC’s conference room, where Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court Justice Aminuddin Khan administered the oath to the newly appointed judges.
IHC Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Arbab Mohammed Tahir, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Mohammed Azam Khan, Justice Mohammed Asif, and Justice Inam Amin Minhas attended the ceremony.
Office-bearers and members of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association were also present.
Earlier, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aamir Farooq, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, and Justice KK Agha had already taken oath as judges of the constitutional court.
Meanwhile, the Federal Constitutional Court delivered its first major judgment on Monday, setting aside a Lahore High Court (LHC) ruling that had invalidated the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of King Edward Medical University.
The LHC had earlier struck down the appointment, but the case remained pending before the Supreme Court for nearly eight years without being taken up for hearing.
The Federal Constitutional Court finally heard the matter and declared the high court’s verdict unlawful.
Following this ruling, the provincial authorities may initiate a fresh process for the vice chancellor’s appointment at King Edward Medical University.
In a separate case concerning the registration of 41 life-saving medicines, the petitioner informed the court that 30 of the drugs had been registered.
However, despite earlier directions from the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) to upload availability details on its website, the information had still not been provided.
Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan summoned Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman, remarking that the petitioner had approached the court in the public interest and that the government must ensure the availability of essential medicines.
DRAP’s counsel maintained that the required information was available online.
The court sought a detailed report from DRAP regarding the availability of the medicines and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
