ISLAMABAD: A poorly managed seminar by the Islamabad PML-N lawyers` wing on Wednesday turned out to be a `send-off reference` for the outgoing chief justice, with the participants accusing CJP Umar Ata Bandial of orchestrating a `judicial coup` in complete contrast to the principle of separation of powers.

`Alas! We would have been saddened by your retirement but the CJP is notleavingbehind a good tradition to remember, [he] instead committed a judicial coup by suspending a bill (Supreme Court Practice and ProcedureAct 2023) which had not even become law then, regretted Ataullah Tarar, a PML-N leader and an ex-aide to former prime minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Mr Tarar was speaking at a seminar organised at a local hotel by the PML-N lawyers` wing titled `Rule of law a must for impartial judiciary` `Running the top judiciary on the basis of liking, disliking or whims always breeds injustice,` regretted Mr Tarar and asked the lawyers to kick start a movement by forming a committee to accord a befitting reception to PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif when he returns to the country on Oct21.At this the hall echoed with slogans: `Yeh jo Kala Coat hai Mian Tera Vote hai` (all these black coats are Mian Nawaz Sharif`s votes).

It was the responsibility of the outgoing CJP to unite the judiciary by setting examples like initiating suo motu notices to help citizens in distress or against the inflated power bills but the CJP chose to keep mum on such issues of public importance, thePML-N leader alleged.

`All constitutional cases of significance, particular judges were made part of the benches but the senior judges like Justice Qazi Faez Isa were ignored,` he said, adding that the concept of independence of the judiciary was trampled with impunity.

`Mired in groupings` The seniority principle on the elevation of judges to the Supreme Court was ignored by cherry-picking and out-ofturn promotions on the basis of likings, disliking, and grouping, he alleged.

As a result of which the top judiciary was divided into two groups, he regretted and questioned how the country could function in a proper manner when its judiciary was mired in groupings.

`Could it be called a rule of law, where senior judges areignored out offearthat favourable judgements may not come,` alleged Mr Tarar and then went on to cite the example of the 2017 Panama judgement, in which a sitting prime minister was disqualified on the basis an un-withdrawn receivable.