ISLAMABAD:
Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa has requested input from the whole Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on the matter of whether or not to conduct interviews with candidates for the appointment of judges to the superior courts.
The CJP wrote to all 28 members of the JCP, “Having assumed the position of Chief Justice thus the chairmanship of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, I look forward to working with you to best undertake our collective responsibility.”
High Court judge appointments must come from two sources: (a) sitting District and Sessions Court judges, and (b) practising solicitors. The JCP also takes into account (c) the approval of additional judges. The letter asked for feedback on whether or not interviews with possible candidates should be scheduled for positions in categories “a,” “b,” and “c.” “Please do let me know if you have any suggestions at your earliest convenience,” it said.
The letter shows that the chief justice is mainly interested in receiving recommendations for judicial appointments to the highest courts.
The letter doesn’t go into detail on the standards for selecting Supreme Court justices. Two Supreme Court judgeships are open right now.
For the past five years, the appointment of Supreme Court justices has been the source of serious disagreements among the court’s senior judges.
It has been heard that the commission is thinking about changing Rule 3 of the JCP Rules, which allows the chief justices to propose nominations.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court wrote that the Constitution does not give chief justices the authority to propose candidates for appointment as judges on higher courts or the Supreme Court itself.
He further noted that Rule 3 gave the chief justices the authority to initiate nominations in the JCP, but that the commission lacked objective criteria by which to do so.
Identifying qualified candidates for consideration by the commission is what “the initiation of nominations” is all about. This is the most important step because it prevents the commission from performing its constitutional function, which is to determine which applicants are qualified to serve.
Rule 3 impedes progress because it vests regulatory authority in the chief justices without establishing clear objective standards.
The commission acts inconsistently with the authority it has been granted and fails to achieve the purpose for which it was established. In light of this, the judge concluded that Article 175-A of the Constitution renders Rule 3 invalid.
Justice Isa had previously questioned Rule 3 of the JCP Rules, 2010 back in January of that year.
According to Isa’s letter, the CJP does not have “unfettered discretionary power” to appoint high court judges because of Article 175-A of the Constitution.
The petition was filed by Salahuddin Ahmed, the former president of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, and it asks that Rule 3 of the JCP Rules, 2010 pertaining to the discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan be overturned, the process of appointment of judges to the superior judiciary be restructured, and elevation of judges from high courts to the apex court be made by adhering to the principle of seniority.
Candidates for high court judgeships are now being interviewed by the Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment.
The vast majority of JCP members favour having the ability to propose candidates for judicial appointments.
