KARACHI: The Karachi Bar As­­sociation (KBA) on Friday appla­uded Justice Omar Sial for to become part of the constitutional bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC). The KBA through a resolution welcomed Justice Sial’s decision after he recused himself from joining the , says a statement. In a letter to Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, the head of the constitutional bench, Justice Sial argued that benches should be constituted on a “seniority basis”. The KBA praised Justice Sial for his “principled stance” in refusing to join the “so-called constitutional bench,” formed by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. The association termed it a “violation of the seniority principle” and a disregard for the opinion of the SHC’s chief justice, and claimed that bench was formed at the behest of the executive and politicians. “As rightly pointed out by the learned judge, this has created a dangerous perception of executive interference in the judiciary and erodes the very fabric of democracy,” the statement said. The judges of Supreme and high courts had taken the oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution, the KBA pointed out, adding that Justice Sial’s commitment to his oath should serve as an example for all judges. The KBA condemned the “manner” in which eight senior judges had allegedly been overlooked in the selection of the head of the constitutional bench. Eight senior judges of the SHC, who have the most constitutional law expertise, were ignored to pick the head of the constitutional bench, the KBA alleged. Alluding to the head of the constitutional bench, the KBA claimed that the learned judge is known to have a long association with the ruling party in Sindh, creating a perception that the executive and legislators are handpicking the judges they feel may be favourably inclined towards them. “This is seriously harmful to the image of the judiciary,” it cautioned. The KBA also said that after the 26th amendment, judicial delays in Karachi had multiplied instead of being reduced, as it replaced five benches for constitutional petitions with a single bench. It also de­­plored the Supreme Court registry’s failure to list numerous petitions challenging the 26th Amendment.